because we've kind of reached the critical point where we turn back now or we start having actions to decrease it now or we risk never being able to go back to the world as it was before climate change and so, (ppc) ya I agree that everyone has to kind of play their part now or else is uh we are not looking at a good future for us and our kids and yeah I think that's the end of this debate


okay so onto the third debate topic which is going green makes good business sense I will be going for the proposition and so I'll start off by saying that uh, going green absolutely makes good business sense because as we said in the previous debate there is increasing kind of awareness about the impacts of climate change there's increasing uh awareness among millennials and Gen Zs and all the young people who are willing to spend more money


on the importance of negating the effects of climate change, so uh I actually went online and I did some digging and that this in singapore actually an increasing demand uh increasing consumer demand for green businesses or at least businesses that have shown that they're


taking a certain step uh, in, trying to negate the impacts of, climate change you know it doesn't have to be big it's not everything uh regarding the climate change has to be about fossil fuels we can talking about we're talking about renewables we're talking about recyclables talking about uh materials that can compost less use of plastic less use of straws it's very evident that going green makes good business sense


when you look at all the largest uh companies in all the largest retail companies in Singapore like places like Starbucks have stopped giving out straws places like mcdonald's stopped giving out straws places like KFC outright bans straws and so


it's hard to argue with the business acumen of basically you know all these, global global companies and in global companies have decided that yes going green makes good businesses that's why they have adopted kind of green measures to


uh help attract more people because they have recognised that the kind of drawbacks to adopting green measures are, basically much smaller than the advantages that you get in terms of attracting uh more green oriented consumers to your business


and at the same time I uh read this study which actually said that consumers wanted to feel like they're doing their part for the environment but a lot of them may not always have the opportunity to do so no people who are don't have the time or are unable to go and volunteer


uh don't have the necessary means to be able to uh donate money to green organizations so they want to feel like they're playing their part in every tiny way they can and for most of them it is uh simply making the conscious decision


to purchase at shops that have shown to be supportive of uh the environment and you know by making it easier for these customers to, to feel like they're playing their part for the environment businesses actually capitalise on this growing trend of uh climate change


uh, ya growing trend of advocacy for climate change so I to just give you an example adidas a few years ago actually sold limited edition sneakers made from recycled plastic bottles that been found in the ocean and so the first line that they made were five thousand of these sneakers which got snapped up almost immediately


and because of how well received these sneakers were, they actually made the second conscious, decision to produce a million more of these sneakers, and adidas is set to profit at least one billion dollars from those just that sneakers sales sneakers line sales alone so we can see that


going green can be a very good decision for business sense, yup, and I'll pass time on to gordon


uh okay so just to address a few of your points the first of all you mentioned that consumers are not willing to spend extra just because a certain product is


uh eco friendly or certain product is environmentally friendly I think that is uh an added sense flop because uh research not say research a new a sales report from clarifies actually shows that demand for environmentally friendly kitchenware has increased by as much as fifty percent in the past three years


as compared to disposable and you know non environmentally friendly kitchenware so that's one thing and another thing is that I you mentioned businesses their first uh priority is to make profit and absolutely that's undisputable but at the same time


it has shown that from from companies of uh the bigger sized companies that going green absolutely is profitable if uh if otherwise they would not be making the business decisions that they have made today and to address the point that uh going green usually makes things more expensive


I'd like to say it does not actually meant mean sorry it does not actually affect big companies as much for example apple has saved a lot of money through uh in their head offices through using solar panels instead of relying on, the traditional energy grid and because of this you know they're able to increase their profits their profit margin for for the year but I agree that for smaller companies who are more who are making very price sensitive products who are making it might not


be as simple of uh kind of a decision to make when it comes to whether or not they should go green and but at the same time I don't believe that going green has to be a commitment through their entire product line there through their entire product chain


it is sort of a commitment you know it can be any small amount of commitment, uh like choosing to use err a green supplier or maybe not choosing to use a green supplier reducing the amount of energy used you know small things like that are actually can be considered incremental and to address the problem of costs I'd actually like to bring up that NEA has grants and incentive schemes to help


go green and they're planning on implementing measures for non-green businesses such as the carbon tax and green building movements so in a way as much as it might be more expensive for them to source out new green suppliers it they can also receive the they can also offset the cost


and perhaps even save money by going green through these incentives and measures that NEA , NEA has has implemented and another point that I'd like to bring up especially for large companies in our current singapore service driven economy


is that SMU studies actually found millennials have shown preferences for joining companies that emphasized on sustainability instead of you know non sustainability granted for some companies like BP uh exxon mobil


you know certain certain companies are basically unable to kind of take the green step because going green might , uh might really present a huge disruption within their business programme but for other companies like in the banking and finance industry perhaps


it is very desirable for new millennials seeking jobs that their companies are kind of, adhere to the notion of sustainability and believe in the idea of sustainability so with that said


, it it actually brings the cost down for businesses operating in singapore to uh try to adopt these gold green standards and at the same time because of increasing uh consumer demand for things that are green


you can actually say that it makes very good business sense for people to kind of take the adopt new going green measures yup and with that I pass it back to gordon


(ppc)


okay so just to, address your point on the idea, of false marketing no that is, I think I would think that that is uh how to say illegal in one term and immoral in another in


and I think green marketing when, done done well will actually, result in, will will actually help the companies itself , so, just like the volkswagen the BMW faking that kind of emissions protocols and their results in order to to kind of attract the green market I think that that is something that we have to be very wary about but at the same time


I think, because, they have done it and they have gotten caught they actually serve as sort of a deterrent to companies who might be thinking of doing the same thing so companies who may be thinking about trying to uh


uh green wash their, uh their marketing they can see the examples of BMW they can see the examples of volkswagen and they actually realise that oh actually maybe shouldn't do this what if we get caught right so ya, that that is one thing, hours


sorry what was the last point you, we're talking about before we hand it over, (ppc)


okay, okay


, so I agree that, marketing is a commitment like green marketing is a commitment and I uh, and it's maybe questionable that the, NEA doesn't give out enough grants or enough incentives in order to push businesses to go on the go green path


but at the same time I argue that this is, essentially a kind of a, long term investments especially when we consider uh, MNCs we consider big companies, it it's a very very much uh, a long term kind of commitment where


we agree to do it to, they and maybe we won't, see the immediate benefits tomorrow but will see the the benefits maybe a year from now where a critical mass of population has been educated on the impacts of climate change on the importance


of, uh slowing the effect, as a climate change and you know everyone wants to kind of be able to do their, part and at the same time I'd argue that if, ninety percent of the businesses in singapore's, uh in in singapore kind of go


green and you are of that ten percent that doesn't go, green in effect you lose out a lot more, than, if you were part of the ninety percent, that were green so I argue that in this case, going green, is, going to eventually


be make good business sense, right so if let's say you are, let's say you'd believe that going green does not, make good business sense and you hold out you are , you are constantly, did you know you don't change at all and you are still not eco friendly by the time you reaches twenty thirties


at that point when uh, critical mass of companies have actually swapped over to going green and you are one, of those stalwarts left, that are have not gone green I think it makes , I think it will end up being very bad for you as a company because, what


eventually going, green won't be as expensive as it is for you and, (ppc), in those companies, who kind of, have products that are, the same price as you , now have added competitive advantage, which is that they are eco friendly


right so no matter what, it is either is a, long term investment now where companies chose to be an early adopter and they kind of, pave the way, which is what I believe is happening, that's why we see a lot of MNCs err kind of, taking charge when it comes, to green practices instead of smaller companies


you know cause MNCs usually have, the financial wherewithal to kind of take charge and lead the way when it comes to green and sustainable practices and then as, more and more MNCs get on the hype train they are, uh more and more


SMCs will, kind of follow suit, and they realise that oh okay this, is where next generation, business is at and so they, will, adopt this uh, uh eco friendly practices, ya so


I think maybe now, it might not make good business sense, because of the increase cost because of, the disruption to your supply lines, but, no matter what, I think going green will, eventually make good business sense, as time goes by


right I think that's something that, we cannot dispute at all, and so that that's what I believe lah and so to wrap up it's just that, , so we've argued, that going green, you know kind of there's kind of an increase


consumer demand as well as uh from millennials , for kind of their jobs , that there is increasing demand for green businesses but at the same time I accept the arguments that, there is kind of uh, a cost associated with going green


in the sense that, you have to source for different suppliers, you have to kind of take a very big commitment , it's a sort of the next big step kind of thing, and it might not be, financially profitable for companies now to take that step


to choose to choose, who's going green, over kind of, their very bare very, threadbare profit margins , (ppc) but, I think that as time goes by we'll eventually reach that, point where companies


can no longer , be uh like, can no longer ignore the fact that, being green is important to them lah, in both, business sense and uh you know the environmental sense and yeah I think that more or less sums up what I have to say yup and that's the end of this debate


part one debate topic one


okay so uh with regards to what you said about how the cross island line will bring a lot of tons of economic benefits and also convenience to the users staying nearby I agree that that's true however I feel that beyond all these economic benefits we have to consider a lot of the intangible


benefits that the nature reserve surrounding this area will actually provide having the cross island line will in fact bring about much convenience and do in fact save a lot of time and money however it disrupts the eco system for many of the species and animals


plant species and animals that are residing in that area and all these species are highly valuable to to the eco system that's present there are many examples in the world in fact where mankind activity has disrupted how natural eco systems work


and from which there are a lot of devastating effects that we do not account for and are also mostly unforeseen there are a lot of times where such deforestation will drives extinction of animals or or also severe endangerment or even displacements of certain


animal types or species more than that uh your point about how there is a lot of Singaporeans are suffering with a lot of like , we need more time to rest and and how this brings about a lot of brings a lot of convenience and also time time saving this


this whole natural reserve also brings about a lot of helps to increase the wealth the the uh non material standard of living for singaporeans in the sense that it provides much nature brings about much relief


and also brings about much comfort for many of the residing singaporeans that like to take walks and even enjoy the nature along their path, also, , I feel that there's


so ya although we can uh we most of us would choose would want to look at how the the main economic benefits that it brings however I feel that these these intangible benefits are also very important


to both the species there and also the mental well being of the singaporeans there, that reside near there and those that choose to visit that natural reserve, especially so in when singapore is prided as a gardens garden city and and such nature reserves are very important to


the reputation and also the state ya now I pass the time back to danny


okay I I accept that , I accept that yes there are measures that has that have been taken by the government to minimise the uh environmental impacts on both the species and like for the flora and fauna however I'd like to I'd like to mention that I feel that there are still some parts where


uh that's strictly unavoidable for example noise pollution might be a factor that could uh that is absolutely unavoidable having to construct having to construct the cross island line underground will still result in large amount of noise pollution which might scare


at which might scare the natural inhabitants in the uh in that area resulting in them resulting in displacements or even migration of the area which then again would still disrupt our eco system for the area


more than that there is also uh an issue on soil stability which although it is it is generally safe to build it in like twenty five storeys underground however I'd like to mention that and for for us to consider that


soil stability is something that is not guaranteed especially when when there are when there's there are seasons of heavy rain or even yeah heavy rain especially when the soils will loosen up and that might actually affect that area


inevitably more than that there are areas where there's an area highlight there's areas highlighted such as the AoneWone site which which which is an important area where the animals would


would usually cross over and that area is used heavily in our cross island line with that area being disrupted it it it'll definitely affect the livelihoods of the animals in that area, and while I agree that it is to our benefit that we should proceed with


with the cross island line for our for the well being of singaporeans I feel that we still have to consider how how the forces of nature will come into play and in the long run it might bite us back in the ways that we do not foresee and


and with with issues such as soil stability which might lead to soil erosion and also having certain plants that will disrupt animal movement such, such


these are these such drawbacks might come in , uh might come in, consequential in the near future and,


yeah with that yeah I pass it is time for open open debate


okay so I guess I'll just conclude these our arguments thus far lah so


generally what you have proposed is that the proposition has proposed that the cross island line should be built because of the the many economic benefits that it brings including less including lower cost


and lower cost for public transport for commuters and also how it brings about a lot of convenience for not just the people living there but the general population in general and what I've what the opposition has uh mentioned is that


we have considered how there are environmental harm that can be done to to the nature reserve while we commence this project and that might not be fully accounted for in the process while we are pursuing convenience and also


ya convenience and connectivity around our our island along the way I you have proposed that it would save a lot of time, provide lower cost lower fares for public transport and also how it gets it helps us


save time by travelling by lowering travel distance travel times but and I have argued that, although those are very tangible and very good benefits that we aim to however there are environmental setbacks such as such as disruption of eco systems and also yeah mainly disruption of the eco systems that are present there might


might pose a greater threat and problem in the near future and although we although we would want to seek such economic and benefits and conveniences we should also consider that the nature is equally as important to us and we should


make considerable effort to conserve and also preserve such areas for future use and also for, , and also as responsible citizens are in general to protect our environment


after which I've mentioned about the points about noise noise pollution and also , and also, uh soil stability which I've mentioned that engineering with the our current engineering capabilities


you were lagging


okay I would like to rebut or okay rather I'd like to propose that actually I feel that climate change is still not, okay climate change firstly is the main driver of climate change is actually global warming and currently for global warming it is actually it can be slowed down and what we do now actually do have does play a significant impact on how we can how it how it affects the future


so for example at the start where around the nineteen, sixties yeah nineteen fifties when they first discovered about the effects and potential harm brought about by climate change and global warming ever since scientists have been trying to


trying to figure out what's actually happening in the stratosphere and how it actually affects us so they have concluded that actually the main reason, the main reason why global warming is occurring is due to the depletion of our ozone layer and ever since since especially after nineteen eighty seven in uh which the Montreal protocol was signed by various nations which has banned the use of CFCs


chlorofluorocarbons these chemicals are are the main are one of the main reasons why climate change occurs and it's also what's driving global warming due to the , as it depletes our ozone layer and ever since it has actually after the this ban of the CFC they've actually realised that our ozone layer depletion has actually declined by twenty percent


since then and at the end of twenty eighteen the UN actually confirmed a scientific assess and a scientific assessment that the ozone layer is actually recovering and they even projected that it might heal completely in the northern hemisphere by the twenty thirties


and twenty and in and the southern hemisphere by the twenty fifties so that said it is actually very feasible and is actually it is feasible and it is very executable as well for us


to play a part and in fact if governments work together climate change and and global warming can be slowed down, although it is true that with what you said about how polar regions are once they melt it's very hard for them to freeze but as you've seen in the past our earth the earth and also our the environment is very very unpredictable


along the many years there are many natural phenomenons that can't be explained and we shouldn't be taking a risk when we shouldn't be taking a risk to continue to allow global warming to speed up when there is actually a chance for us to save it with with tangible actions and also global abiding protocols


yeah with that I pass the time back to danny


okay so the there are a few things that I'd like to address firstly your point about how trapping with the carbon with our greenhouse gasses such as carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide in our atmosphere deflecting sun rays is actually


kind of helping this situation is not entirely true because technically those greenhouse gases actually trap the heat in our atmosphere so although it does deflect the sun rays the trapping of heat actually increases our temperature way more than the deflecting of sun rays that


that yeah that has, that has happened cause of that so technically it's still worse for our government for our environment that we have such greenhouse gasses present in our stratosphere secondly I would like to address your point about how about your about yup that


although such it is proven that our government agreements can sometimes can have result in parties sometimes can result in governments not working together or like some parties withdrawing from initial agreements


however it is seen that, generally once, okay how governments governments are usually listening to will listen to their citizens especially because their votes


will will will generally, determine what government they will have so if in a in a in a recent years there is a lot of education on this on the topic of global warming and also climate change


more and more people are becoming aware about the devastation and harm that is brought about in our environment and there are more and more environmental activist, and activists present and even some some people are are also there are also more people with that practise eco eco friendly habits in their consumer patterns or even eco friendly businesses to attract such consumers


I believe that this this large group of , or rather these eco friendly citizens will help to sway their government in their in their decisions if they choose to pursue such err if they choose to withdraw or not abide by or not practise environmentally friendly practices


more than that nowadays fossils fuels are actually becoming more and more redundant in our current age given that there is a there is there are a lot of tapping into renewable energy sources


for example iceland actually uses ninety percent of its country's energy is run by renewable sources and it is also and it is even it's even a trend by many governments where they're all tending to


switch to renewable sources of energy because they find it , more efficient some even and and also it's renewable it will not run out they are not under the they are not under the, the threat of the OPEC where they where where they are under sometimes ridiculous oil oil oil price rises and also fluctuations


they'd rather adopt such they'd rather adopt the renewable sources where it's more where it's more reliable and also not under such price fluctuations and , with that with that said so if if the world in general starts to adopt more and more renewable energy even third world countries although they are main exporters of oil they can't do anything if they can't


sell their oil if the world's if the world is not willing to import their oil, so if although they it is true that they'll not be willing to forsake, the economic benefits they might get from, from harnessing oil but if there is a no if there's no demand for it thus that the supplier of the supply will not will not matter either the producers will eventually have to start switching have to find other sources of income if they realise that


their oils their oil can't be sold yeah


okay , however, I mean it is worse off economically but I mean for some third world countries that are example in like the desert reasons the desert regions especially they are the ones suffering the most from global warming they themselves are very aware of how


how global warming is affecting them I mean, although they do they do have to sacrifice economically as people start to understand and suffer the impacts the direct impacts of global warming they themselves become very aware and conscious of what their actions can lead to and I believe the ultimate goal


for most mankind will be survival and naturally they would want to preserve their environment as a result of that


okay so I believe that the main priority for most businesses is that firstly the most important thing is that it should be maximising profit that's the first thing that comes to mind for most businesses and


although I agree that nowadays there is a rising trend in eco friendly businesses but I'd also like to mention that I'd like to acknowledge I feel that it is generally not feasible to to go green


for many reasons firstly going green generally increases the cost of production for most of our goods for most enterprises especially for small companies, producing lower end goods most of their products are are generally very price competitive and consumers will generally be very sensitive to even an extra dollar extra two dollars and will not be willing to pay extra just cause it's green


especially when it can get it at a very low price generally, also more than that with higher okay another problem that comes with this is also the supply chain disruptions most of our goods and especially raw materials come from


come from less developed countries and they generally adopt less eco friendly practices to to say that we are trying to pursue uh to go green generally we are trying we would generally go in the direction that all our our whole process and


our general business practise in producing our goods are all green which is very difficult especially when it comes to raw materials, when it comes to this there will be very little suppliers that there are very few suppliers that are actually green so by doing so you are actually compromising your your your ability to seek better production cost


and that will definitely that that will definitely increase your cost of production and with that costs costs of products increase and consumers are generally not, most consumers won't be happy to pay to pay a premium or to pay extra just for something somewhere something that can be bought when at a lower price ah generally


, yeah so now I'll pass the time back to danny


okay I'd like to address the points you have made especially those where okay especially for MNCs


such as the one such as the ones you mention mentioned such as for example Starbucks I feel that a lot of them although they do adopt they do try to employ green marketing as part of their business strategy but actually a lot of them has also suffered, serious backlash as a result of it and has been accused of green washing in fact


a very notable example would be would be Volkswagen actually volkswagen and actually many of the uh BMW #Mercedes# as well many of them have been accused of green washing because they have claimed to have produced the hybrid


fuel uh hybrid car that that has that releases less emissions however in we're they actually just they actually adjusted their their calculation and and just make it appear to be less


to to be more energy efficient when in reality it's not the case, and because of that many consumers are are made aware and have since lodged their complaints and have sued Volkswagen and those companies for green washing in fact even demanding compensation


for such for such marketing ploys and that said this actually discourages many firms from going green because once you go green it's uh something which you which you've fully commit to, and I don't think it's actually it's not very possible to just be to just be to go green for certain aspects but not go green for other aspects


because what people will see is that once you claim to be green you have to be green throughout if not you'll you will appear hypocritical and is actually bad for your company branding, and as such uh it will actually not make as much business sense because


there's too much to there's a lot there's too much to uphold and also there's a lot of things which which there'll be a lot of barriers lah basically along the way when it comes to supply chain instruction and management and also


with such with with marketing being difficult business operations are actually not that easy either to the supply chain disruptions although the government do hand out incentives for green companies to help alleviate their cost


however I don't think it's enough, when you weigh it's enough to actually fully compensate such companies it requires the companies to at the end of the day still take up some form of losses which is not, which is not which is not practical and is not what most businesses would stick to do so ya with that said I don't think I'd I would still insist that going green does not make good business sense ya


I'll pass the time time back to you


err, I was talking about how, it's difficult to follow through and insist on like stay green throughout all the processes and technically the although the the government do give out incentives right generally it is still not it's still not economic lah like still it does not make


business sense like it's it's not worth it it's not worthwhile to adopt such practices because the cost is incurred is still way higher than what the government is helping to cushion


part one debate topic one


sorry am am I the opposition, oh right okay, okay I'll start off by quoting a statistic in twenty eighteen fox published the study explaining that more than sixty four percent of individuals of tends and youths from social media and internet uh from social media and internet as compared to other traditional sources of media


thus it's definitely true that since the advent of internet development the usage of TV and newspapers have definitely lost it's relevance, one key reason for this is simply because of the large reservoir of information available on the internet that the TV and newspaper simply cannot access when we talk about the newspaper there's always limited information which can be presented for print of the paper as most newspapers are only published on the daily basis


and hence information presented are usually limited in their breadth and their depth, furthermore newspapers published in different countries usually focus on different topics for example the straits times in singapore would predominantly focus on local topics for example ya it doesn't cover for foreign affairs as well


and thus the coverage on foreign topics would definitely be less as compared to certain other foreign news sources, compare this to the internet which provide endless hours of information and new sources from around the world we can tapped on the anytime and anyplace instead of being restricted to getting our source of information from just a newspaper


as for the television as for the TV which is predominantly associated with providing us with entertainment I also feel that it has it has dwindled in popularity in usage in recent years once again there's only limited availability of shows


and programs that we can watch off the television and we might not be able to watch the desired programs when we wanted to and we are subjected to scheduling and different things by the television companies on the other hand the usage of internet it allow us access to


applications like youtube hulu and netflix ya which allow us to watch almost any show that we want to without having to wait for certain time of the day uh ya to watch it as such we feel that it is undeniable I feel that it's undeniable that the development of the internet


has caused traditional forms of media like television and newspaper to dwindle in it's popularity and thus it's relevance in recent years


I'll like to argue that , is in fact more convenient to access the internet compared to traditional forms of media uh meaning newspapers and television, uh in today's world the internet significantly easier to access than as compared to television or newspaper


uh moreover moreover I also disagree with the statement that it's more difficult to carry an electronic device uh the newspapers or a television ya conversely it is in fact ya I will argue that, err uh an electronic device is more portable than newspaper or a television with smart phones being able to even fit into one's pocket admittedly this may be more costly and less accessible to the wider population but statistically we see that as of April twenty twenty


more than four point five billion people in the world use internet on the daily basis through the smart phones tablets laptops and so on we think about it how many of us actually to not own one of these electronic devices, I'll think that most of do actually own electronic devices and thus that make it so convenient for us to access the internet and is much easier than a newspaper and television which you which is often situated at one place often at one's home


so electronic devices are portable and they can be access anywhere and at anytime and as such I believe that it is much easier for us to obtain on new sources and sources of entertainment as well through the internet as you requires all of us all it requires


is for us to pull out our devices so that we can immediately to surf the internet, as compared to the newspaper where we have to bring along physical copy of the newspaper this can be we can also be be regarded as cumbersome as many newspaper are really large inside and hence it will be inconvenient to bring it along with us as when we want


statistics have also indicated that most people still receive the new sources when on the go such as commuting to and fro from work as such uh this is also useful in in presenting day to day happenings uh for example


uh through the internet we can immediately be alerted of a flash flood that has that has just happened in town, it can be seen thus that the usage of the internet would be more convenient than the usage of newspapers the internet is also an improved portable version of the television and we can bring along with us and access at anytime how many times have we seen commuters on the trains or buses


uh where they are watched their latest K dramas korean dramas while on the go this will obviously not be possible in comparison to a physical television which I mentioned would be situated at one particular place additionally


I'll also argue that the internet is not limited to solo solo consumption in the sense that it is definitely family friendly it is something that you can be sharing with others on the go as well uh take for instance uh


uh, for example shows that are, seen on the television are often presented as well on the internet, and


uh for example Netflix, ya those are forms of entertainment that are available on the internet and it's also available to be shared with the people around you hence it is clear to see that the internet has actually resulted in


uh TV and newspapers becoming uh less relevant as these are starting to be replaced by the functions of the internet


uh I'd like to comment on the first point you made first about how uh three billion or so people still do not have access to, , to the internet uh or, more specifically to electronic devices and I'd like to mention that this assumption this assumption rest on the


sorry this uh comment rest on the assumption that this three point five billion or so people in fact do rely, do still rely on television and newspapers as there, as a source of information


uh another thing you mention about, uh televisions being more, more suitable for sharing a content while watching together with other people I think that uh I'd like to


mention the fact that internet is is useful for solo consumption definitely but it is not limited to such uh, we see the I the, that example of uh commuters watching their personal korean dramas on the go this highlights the convenience of


uh of the internet however it does not limit the function of the internet to just solo solo soloistic consumption instead uh the function of the internet is still so extensive that


it can in fact replace uh the function of the television, as for the one final point I'd like to waste is how the usage of the internet has in fact caused of traditional forms of media uh, to be less effective in uh


in the sharing of the perspective this is because of the engagement that the internet brings, the days when news was fed to us in a controlled cycle from a single view point over seen by single editor and passively consumed those days are over and what we want today and tomorrow are multi authorial news news stories where we can join and we can leave a comment


we can share the ideas around you can join a track, stories get stale remarkably quickly these days because yesterday yesterday's news become irrelevant almost instantly we don't want to wait twenty four hours to read about something that just happened


if a flood that has just flashed into town if a flood that has just flashed into town we want to know about it now with online news resources we can get all this engagement and interactivity, , it's happening now and we can't stop it uh if we want to because you can't put a genie back into the bottle furthermore the internet allows people to discuss their opinions freely with and commenting on other people's uh ideas on a public platform


this gives rise to an increase sharing of ideas and facilitates a more engaging news seen as compared to traditional forms of media like newspaper where once again it's from a single view point it's uh, it is a passive way of picking out information only receiving only reading with no sharing of ideas from other people thus the internet


I believe has resulted in the TV and newspaper becoming increasingly less relevant


part two debate topic two, people have the rights to remain anonymous when portrayed in the media


so the first reason for this goes back to the fundamental principle of privacy the right to privacy refers to concept that one's personal information is protected from public's scrutiny this has been a principle which have been advocated by human rights group and even the united nations


the UN for decades ya and, this is something that exist in most if not all societies today especially in today's world where billions of people have access to the information put out in the media the right of privacy is perhaps more important than ever was


the information that has put out into the media would be a cyber space for perhaps the rest of time and can be easily access through the internet, many of us are not comfortable in putting ourselves in the public like especially since information we put out could possibly never be removed and hence the right to remain anonymous is not critical importance a research done by a statistical dot com


show that more than sixty three percent of people deeply value their right to privacy and to be anonymous when portrayed in the media and this is something that they value deeply if we do not offer this individual's right to be anonymous it could create a


fear culture where people are fearful of ever being publicised in the media and this could give rise to a decrease sharing of ideas and trading of knowledge in such forms of media and this will give rise inevitably to detrimental effects in our society


thus it is important to maintain the rights of individuals to remain anonymous and portrayed in the media


okay, I'd like to argue, that anonymous expression and anonymous opinions , are not always a bad thing and in fact sometimes it maybe necessary for


a positive change, a healthy society involves the freedom of speech where people of all backgrounds are able to freely share their thoughts regarding certain topics without needing to worry about the potential the potential repercussions that could arise from their opinion


however should the, available should the option to remain anonymous be taken away this may create a fear of backlash in expression in in a expressing opinions, an example of how


expressing anonymous opinions is important uh can be seen in the united states where the first amendments of the constitutions has established freedom of speech and this was something valued by millions of americans


in nineteen forty eight the UN recognized, , (ppc) excuse me, the UN recognized free speech as a human right in the international declaration of human rights this show why creating a community where people can freely speak in mind trade thoughts and opinion without the fear of backlash uh was of utmost importance


for society to progress, for many people who have a different opinion from that of the norm they could be fearful of expressing themselves on public media for numerous reason I've aforementioned such as how information might be as


for example how information put out , they might be uh online for the rest of time and they cannot be taken back , uh, this is, this, this is especially key in minority groups where


their opinion is may be different from the rest as such by giving them the rights to remain anonymous they can then be freely able to express themselves through the media and to create a thoughtful and engaging discussion about topics uh


where there maybe conflicting views as compared to others, uh ya and I think this uh this, potential to create discussion to create a safe space where they can freely raise up , their own problems and


and and to have a discussion as to how to solve this I think this also definitely proof useful uh in creating positive change, hence I feel that, allowing people to the right to remain anonymous could be a focal point in in creating healthy discussions for the individual in our society allowing different views to be recognized and heard and thus allowing


society to, to to remain healthy as a whole and thus this this right should be maintained


uh indeed the lack of anonymity, indeed the lack of anonymity will allow for repercussions to take place to ensue, however these repercussions, they can be dangerous to one's health and one's safety


this is because of the risk of personal harassment, social media is a common platform where one will be exposed to millions of millions of strangers some of which has dangerous intend, sometimes this dangerous intends simply arise from a conflict from a conflict of interest or opinion


in that sense it's a unjust intent it's a unjust dangerous intend as earlier mention should a person on social media express a view of their identities publicly being made known to everyone it could give rise to severe personal harassment


and this could cause detrimental effects to a person's psychological and mental well being, for example in recent years that have been a new phenomenon called doxing and this has emerged, and this has emerged on social media sites whereby individuals dissatisfied or angry at opinions expressed by another will make used of the victims personal information to conducts a dox attack on that individual this would leak out very confidential very sensitive information about


an an individual such as their bank account uh statement family history address and more such attacks could expose individuals just through very basic information such as the full name or country or residence


thus I feel that it's crucial that these individuals are allowed to remain anonymous because this can allow them to protect themselves from the risk of such attacks


yes it is true that uh if anonymity in the world would completely taken away then such attacks would be definitely be taken away, as well and I really wish this was the case but unfortunately the truth is when people


uh conduct such attacks is simply, it's not, whether they have the right to remain anonymous or not is the fact is that they are able to keep their identity concealed as they carry out these uh attacks it's not it's not something that they can be forced to reveal


and thus as much as if as much as it'll be best doxers this dox attackers are able to are are prevented from remaining anonymous it simply is not possible and thus


I feel that as a right of personal privacy and personal protection that each individual should have the ability to remain anonymous because of the potential for such harm to take place a potential of a harm that cannot be


that that is out there no matter what whether the right to anonymity exist or not


part three debate topic three, social media should not have the rights to store and use our personal information the first reason for why social media should never be allowed to the rights to store and use our personal information is because of privacy and safety concerns with the internet granting millions of brands


companies and individuals world wide access to social media should they store and use our data it could allow the data to fall into the wrong hands and enable such individual with bad intent the ability to cause harm damage or or or manipulation towards victims


a clear example of this was when edward snowden former FBI and CIA agent acted as a whistle blower and he revealed that many agencies were exploiting data from their citizens, on social media using it for surveillance raising a multitude of concerns regarding safety and privacy


especially since there has been very little tracking our accountability of where social media sites put our information it will be of extreme danger to grant them the ability to use our personal data, recent controversies involving facebook and cambridge analytical have shed further light about this whereby it was revealed that facebook was selling data about it's users to companies and indirecting indirectly exposing personal information


to millions worldwide, plus as there is no contract no lease as to how long these companies can retain our information for putting things such information out there and being stored on the internet could be something could never be repaired and remained out on the internet forever


again this uh additionally this goes against PDPA guidelines for example when individual is not allowed to publicise private information about others without prior permission hence I feel that giving social media websites the right to store and use such personal


information would put ourselves in grave danger of this information being misused, as each individual's safety is concern social media thus does not have any right to take control of such data


uh but I'd like to raise another point that revolves around how it is intrinsically unethical to grant such large companies to make use of our personal information for their profit, how many times have we noticed that all scrolling through social media we come across advertisement for products that we have just been browsing online mere minutes or hours ago


the conversations that we have with others as well through these social media websites they are sometimes exploited to catch on our interest allowing the social media websites to grain gain revenue through advertises catering to our various likes and avoiding our dislikes


ya sounds quite creepy doesn't it the main reason why most of us use social media is to catch up with our friends or to build new relationships online yet this companies are making use of our information to increase the revenue and profit margins that they are earning


to me this is extremely unethical and it's something what we should no longer allow to happen how could we continue to witness this multi million companies exploit the data and information that we we users give and allow the


companies to keep , making use of it at the same time see how social media is able to use such information uh imagine what would happen if it falls into a wrong hands into the hands of evil doers or people with malicious intend we should seek


to put an end to this immediately by not allowing companies to use and store our information for their own benefits and thus revoke the right of social media platforms to freely use our personal data


, while you mentioned that social media is already collecting personal information in such ways , I think I'd like to go back to the argument that even though they are already doing it that they should not have the right to do as such


sometimes we see on social media platforms in order to confirm that your unique identity you are not uh repeat user they will require personal data such as your handphone number sometimes even asking for your home address and


these are very sensitive information that could be exploited uh even if there's no immediate malicious intent by the media platform involved having our personal uh information stored , on those sites could potentially put ourselves at risk of hacks and scam while you also mentioned earlier that they have uh high security uh with with encryption uh services


uh sorry encryption, well encrypted websites that that seem to protect our data uh we see that even the most established websites with world renowned security systems have already been hacked and personal information leaked you see this in the case of the ministry health of in singapore


what is there to say that social media websites with such a large database or information would not follow suit especially since this large database of information makes them such a, uh, a a golden target for such hackers


these hackings could have a detrimental effect on our livelihoods as the credit card information or home addresses or personal relationships these could all be leaked and this would cause and these would cause us a myriad of problems


furthermore there has been a recent trend of people making use information obtained from social media sites to impersonate other users and exhort information from their peers, we see this in ya all sorts of different scams online


thus thus allowing social media websites to continue storing and using our personal information would further exacerbate this danger and this risk, although it's something that is already happening this should be something that should be put to stop to this is something that we must put a stop to


the internet is already regarded as a highly uncensored dangerous environment where the users are at risk of numerous threats and I believe that granting social media the opportunity to store and use our information for the own profits and benefits could worsen these threats and create a negative environment online


, I'd like to rebut the the uh the statement you mention about how personal data is actually not used in by people with dangerous intent uh for example personal data can be used


in, can be used and is used in many phishing scams phishing is where uh a hacker or a scammer collects personal information about someone maybe their home address how many siblings they have uh basically pretending to be


someone they're not basically pretending to be a credible person, uh and thus trying to collect information from you based on that identity and this social media platforms by collecting such personal data they provide a reservoir of information for these phishers to exploit to hack and to


collect for themself for their own self benefit and thus, social in in that sense social media websites are definitely very dangerous , because all these information that's stored online is basically uh


it it it allows the risk of such hacks and scams to be taking place, and while, uh, while these benefits of social media collecting uh your data is nice and could be useful in terms of helping you save time in shopping or


uh free or advertising the things that are actually on your mind while this is a nice benefit it does not measure up to the inexcusable danger of, of the risks, the inexcusable danger of this hacks and scams that could threaten uh individual's entire livelihood


thus I feel that in spite of the potential benefits that uh social media collect that the collection of personal data can entail, it it uh, it dare not measure up to


uh, uh the greater danger of this hacks and scams uh possibly affecting, one's entire lives


part one, debate topic one


I would first like to start off by defining the term relevant relevant means appropriate to what is being done or being considered in this case uh in a case of the debate I will consider TVs to be like what mark said predominantly a source of entertainment


while newspapers has mainly being a source to convey news, starting with newspapers I believe that newspapers even with the advent of the internet have not uh lost their relevance on their society cause they still ultimately feel that purpose and continue to provide in depth information about the happenings around the world


they inform people about what newspaper can inform people about the small local original day today happening of society and although the information might not be as endless as on the internet newspapers are curated on a day to day basis


which means that the editors they decide on a specific, list of uh topic that they deem relevant, for consumers to read, and this can this can help improve the convenience for accessing news that a lot of people faced everyday rather than having to comb through the vast and endless nature of the internet to search for news topics that they want to read they can have it directly presented in front of them for them to flip through


so in fact newspapers might be a more convenient and therefore relevant way of uh communicating news to people and society, secondly sometimes, newspapers can be brought into places to access news where electronic devices like your phone or your computer might not be able to for example on an airplane


uh with the inability to use wi fi most of the time might be difficult to access your news there what how are you going to read news then a newspaper is very easy to carry and keep, on the other hand, additionally there's a group of people


namely , uh those less skilled with technology and perhaps our older grandparents who are less savvy with the internet and therefore will continue to use newspapers uh for the foreseeable future because their familiarity with it


there are many people who do not have a proper knowledge of how to accurately access and verify the news that they read online and so they still prefer to trust and, uh rely on the newspapers to provide them with uh factual informative information everyday


moving on to television I believe that TV is still a relevant, TVs are still relevant as both a source of news and a form of entertainment because TV viewing offers an opportunity to bond with others while most media that you see on the internet like youtube videos or uh netflix shows are designed for solo consumption


TV since it's often located in living room therefore becomes a shared experience, I often can co watch cartoon channel with my brother and observe how he learns new ideas from his on on screen friends, and far from the widely held assumption that TV viewing is just mindless consumption of content it also provides impetus for discussion


hence after watching there's the spirited discussion on the play by play analysis of whatever program were shown and so on, additionally like newspapers TV's are also curated to ensure certain levels of quality rather than having to comb through the entire internet to search for a particular program there is that that might be interesting you can


simply sit on the couch and have everything presented to you, TV content are undergoes an extensive process from conceptualization to production to transmission so that you can be sure it also passes a of certain level of quality


you bring out a number of points which uh I wish to rebut uh you say that uh because of the internet TVs and newspapers have started to become less relevant however they still remain relevant and uh one of the first putting one of the first ways they remain relevant is because


uh still a large majority of the population on this earth still does not, have access to, the internet everyday using a statistic that you yourself quoted four point five billion people accessed the internet in in some form everyday that still leaves several more billion


three point five or more billion people unable to have daily internet access and there's and therefore they will rely on other forms of ways such as newspapers to receive news and information, for this large proportion of the world which we might not see here in our own society or country


newspapers still remain the ever present source of news as they're perhaps they're country infrastructure technology level does not allow them to use phones or other electronic devices to surf the internet and find news so in this case


until uh receive major social economic and infrastructure change this countries around the world newspapers would never lose their relevance for a select audience of people, as they are physical tried and tested way of conveying news to a large population of people


in addition I would I would also say that, as the newspaper has been around for many years right many many decades and years, it has become a regular habit to the routine of many people and habits are hard to die there are a lot of people especially of older age who continue the habit of reading the newspaper early in the morning along with their breakfast and coffee


while, the , while internet might provide endless sum of uh more relevant up to date information there's something that uh something that cannot be replaced is the comfort of just sitting down and reading a news a physical newspaper in a chair


which is why many people still continue to read read newspapers in society, and while newspapers might be in a bigger size and slightly more cumbersome to read than accessing the internet on the phone, it they can still be brought in places which phones cannot such as airplanes like I mentioned previously


moving on to the television television , I think that televisions still continues to remain relevant despite the rise of the internet because


uh TV, TVs can be located in areas which which facilitate this kind of uh group entertainment that, uh the internet might not, uh facilitate for example in your in your one of your point you brought up how you see people in trains


or where ever, uh entertaining themselves with the internet with their favorite TV shows from the internet on their phone's however you could equally see uh similar people in a let say airport waiting lounge or shopping centre


groups of large large groups of people altogether watching a a program just one large TV and in this case TV is still fulfilling the same purpose is providing entertainment or news to a large of people except in this case it's just one TV to a large group


and it might be a lot more efficient, that way, and watching TV, still provides unlike, let say watching a watching a show on the internet TV still provide a chance a chance for answers for discovery a re discovery because when you channel surf on a TV TV enables you to enjoy content that you do not necessarily have to search for


this might be an advantage to people who just can't be bothered to take the time to search for to go and hunt for the latest and greatest uh program that critics have been raving about, it provides an opportunity for lazy people like myself example to sit in a chair and just cycle through a channel to find entertainment


however the still the crux of our debate here today is whether the TVs and newspapers are still relevant today and which they are because people ultimately you do still see people in public using TVs and news engaging in watching TVs and reading newspapers


in almost every house we have a TV when our prime minister decides to make an announcement we all eagerly tune in as a family to , to watch it on the TV TV provides an opportunity because let say it's in living room of most houses and this facilitates a group engagement of content which really can then discuss and therefore form the same opinions that you


form the same kinds of comments and opinions that you just talked about with regards of engaging on contents, well as for newspapers they ultimately still serve that purpose of uh conveying information and news to a wide audience


it might be a different form compared to the, to accessing news on a electronic device over the internet but it still fulfill it's purpose and gets the job done


K uh


part two debate topic two


well since you haven't define what media is I would like offer my own definition of it as either being in the form of let's say social media or media being uh the kind that we see, uh done by newspapers and news TV channels for example


so in this case I believe that uh we do not have the right to remain anonymous because firstly I'll talk about uh why we don't have the right to do so over social media first, for a start, in social media anonymity can create a platform for people to spill hate and people to create echo chambers of uh


of, a hurtful content, for example in some CD corners of the internet or some message boards commenter's used the veil of anonymity to utter vulgar false or damaging comments that they would likely never write if their names were attached being anonymous over the internet can give some people a sense of power


and this power is something that they like to abuse in order to hurt people who, who who are already uh known to the public, and so by getting rid of this internet anonymity if people if everyone knew who uh who is on the end of someone typing a hurtful or uh damaging comment then everyone will also think twice about


posting this kind of uh, uh, slander and therefore the internet will also become a safer more accessible place for everyone to use with, and the internet is much like real life


it would become much more like a real life if anonymity was removed because what you shouldn't do in real life because people can trace back to you you should also not do online and now as the internet is greatly increasing in popularity in usage, this right to remain anonymous should also go because


if as we rely more and more on the internet sometimes we have trouble discerning , whether, what are the true intentions of people who have their uh names and identity covered up when they post comments or articles about other things or people that are happening in the world today


this is for social media but to address anonymity in conventional media like news or, like news for example, I believe that the news uh let's say news reporting channels or newspapers have every right to


uh publicised information that uh takes away the anonymity of whoever they choose to report on because ultimately anonymous just means not identified by name of unknown name and, well we all live in society we have all our own


social social circles and, now with the advent of the internet we can basically find almost everything online and if the media were to publish let's say a factual article or, opinion piece on one of us it will mainly just be adding to one of the vast uh to the vast supply information on the internet


it will be for everyone to access and if the if the information was factual and you haven't done anything wrong then personally I feel that that should be nothing to be afraid of or nothing to hide, on the contrary if the if the media would not allow to publicise anyone's uh identity or name


then, uh for example criminals or, uh criminals could get away with having their crimes, uh not ever linked to them, by name and association one of the reasons why one of the reasons that this incentivize many people to commits crime


is the fear of their friends or family finding about their identity and them losing all their contacts in their life so, if anonymity was taken away and and and, uh people thinking of committing crimes also think twice about doing so if they knew that they're own personal lives would be uprooted as a result


it's one thing to have uh to be charged in a court but the media not being able to report your name but if the media was able report your name and your criminal offence to the general public , then, it will come at a great cost to your life and this would be another incentive to help reduce crime and


uh trouble in our communities, so I believe that the right to remain anonymous when portrayed in media both conventional media and social media is something that uh we could all do without and you'll actually make the world a better and safer place


with regard to how anonymity preserves freedom of speech I will argue that even without anonymity freedom of speech does exist because as we see in society freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence however with anonymity it's essentially allowing freedom of consequence along with that


if someone is anonymous and pose let's say threats to uh commit acts of violence in society, how would, how will one be able to identify or shut down the threat or report it to the to the authorities if it just a blank meaningless name on the internet behind a behind a screen


if anonymity was taken away these kinds of uh, uh people would be able to respond to these kinds of threats much more effectively even, because at the end of the day even with uh without anonymity on on let's say media or the internet


one still has the perfect freedom of speech to make any err to make known his or her opinions about uh matters pertaining on something in the world, if the opinion is not, is


does not say anything , that is, hurtful attacking or derogatory in some way then that person will not feel, like like in real life that person would not feel that , they should be afraid of posting it online however it's only anonymity only becomes useful when people are posting opinions that become


hate fueled that become very rude that become personal attacks on another people and the internet , the internet of anonymity therefore gives them, the freedom and freedom without repercussions to post whatever they like without fear of consequence


having, uh anonymity removed would therefore just disincentivise, people from, uh commit from saying or doing things that they wouldn't do in real life online


and going back to you uh I think your your point that you mention on, how it can be used to spark for still changed however anonymity can only be can also be use spark negative change, as in uh as we see now in the united states with regard to uh the political campaigns between the democratic and republican parties


uh there are many if uh law will be termed flame wars on the internet created by anonymous posters designed to instigate conflict and false information between uh the two different parties and these accounts no one knows where they're uh


who is creating them no one even knows if the people who are creating them are even from the united states because some believe that it might be a ploy from a foreign uh party let's say uh china to interfere with american elections and political matters


so in this case anonymity creates a lot of distrust and uh, people not being able to accurately identify, where the source of they're uh these opinions are actually coming from and it puts into question the


whole contexts of whatever discussion is being held on the internet therefore to make both society and the internet uh more factual objective and, I would say safer place anonymity uh should be should be removed


however in this case I feel that anonymity goes both ways in preventing such attacks for instance the doxing you text that you uh speak of come from people who have the uh let's say public information made known being attacked by


uh people who other people dissatisfied with perhaps the other person's opinion and created, uh this anonymous internet accounts to therefore attack them without consequence now imagine the world where the people that potentionally decide to dox other people


also have their uh real names available for everyone to see on the internet now this would be enough I feel this would be enough of a disincentive for them to do any kind of uh personal attack regardless of how angry they are because they know that


, by doing such dox attacks or similar things then they also be exposing themselves to , uh the power of the law and of other internet users, because maybe these dox attacks are also not acceptable


and so I feel that anonymity goes both ways currently the situation that you describe is in the world where uh people who are not anonymous are being attacked by those who are anonymous so in fact, uh dissenting opinions are all part of part and parcel of life


but over the internet sometimes people can feel that the power of anonymity gives them to lash out and uh spill hate about people they disagree with now if anonymity was taken away people like in real life would think twice


before acting rashly and this could even create a safer and more conducive uh environment for discussing things, where people will be will be more wary about how they act and behave, knowing that there could be severe personal consequences if they decide to


posed as though uh no one could identify who they are


part three debate topic three


I feel that social media on the other hand because of it's uh account based nature has to has has a necessity to leave to store our personal information and therefore uh should also be able to use it to tailor improve our experience


some of the examples that you have raised such as , facebook selling data to companies uh, I feel is uh not a good example of the dangers of uh storing and using our personal information because the personal information that was sending to companies are things like our user preferences and the kind of articles or brands or shoes for example that


we tend to search for now these helps in improving the various companies uh, operational uh capabilities and how they uh structure and manage their products because when they know this would basically act as another form of uh user information


of customers information which then can use to better tailor their whatever product they're selling next time, so in fact , most of the information that social media is that you say has been uh sold to company this is in fact not harmful at all if it would ever publicised which most of the time it is not because companies like facebook use the most advance encryptions software


and capabilities to protect users from information leakages, since social media is paid for by advertising, for example that's why we are able to use apps like uh instagram and facebook for free on our phones


the information that is valuable to advertisers is also what social media platforms want to collect and aggregate so that is useful it won't be things like our, besides, the amount of information we enter on social media isn't extremely comprehensive they will never ask us to enter our uh bank account details for example


or , or social security number or something similar because the bulk of the the data that they are collecting are basically behavioral meta data this means that things like our name phone number address and credit card information aren't that important to


social media companies what they are more interested in is the type of things that we comment on the websites we visit most frequently and the things we buy the most basically they just want to know what we're doing so they can better target the ads and companies can better improve their products that they want to


sell for sell to us this is good for advertisers and since in order to keep social media free for the foreseeable future, allowing the platforms that we use to store and use our personal information , is basically a necessity so that they can fund the maintenance of their own operations to run the social media company


social media platforms are on our side since we are the people that are basically writing the chats by providing them behavioral information which they can then sell so by letting them have access to this kind of personal information which isn't revealing or harmful in a way


they're able to generate more ad revenue and therefore remain free, so in fact it is to our benefit that social media has the rights to store and use our personal information, because if they didn't then perhaps we will have to pay a ten dollar a month subscription for things like instagram and no one wants that


yup


however I I would argue that social media because it is a platform that you willingly choose to sign up with an account for like creating a facebook or instagram account for example you are basically you basically have to give the social media companies access to some sort of personal information


because you're using that platform and within they're own uh terms and conditions because they are running the platform, , even to just have uh create a profile that they store on their servers they will have to have some of your personal informations on file


and it therefore makes it unavoidable for these uh social media companies to be storing and using your personal information because you have willingly sign up for an account with them, and because it is their platform ultimately it's also their decision on how


on how they use their data as it ultimately their, uh they are not using the data to any malicious intent, they're like I said they are the bulk of the data that they are sending are behavioral meta data and while it you say it might be creepy seem advertisement for things that you just click elsewhere on the internet I'll argue that ultimately at the end of the day is quite irrelevant because it's merely an algorithm


to, to help whatever advertisement advertisement provider just get their content across it is not some uh creepy man sitting in the room somewhere who is trying to monitor and manipulate you through the power of advertisements it's just a computer software that


looks at what you click on and things and offers you things that they think might be interesting to you and since their advertisement advertisements that most of us just tend to click away from because we're not interested in advertisements, we just want to get to our content, it really doesn't affect us in any way but what it does affect us in like I said keeping social media free and accessible for all of us to use without having to uh pay in terms of money for the services


we do pay but we do pay with the the behavioral data that uh they gather from how we use the social media and because we're using their platform willingly they therefore have a right to also keep and use data for however they want


if I believe that if, someone disagrees with how social media has the rights to store our personal information there's already solution in place which is to not use social media in the first place and not create an account with them


if, uh that is such an issue


first of all the scams that you talked off of people impersonating others on social media to uh exhort thing from them they are not done with , with help from social media storing our personal information because they are done from copying the information that people willingly post online for example creating a a fake instagram profile of someone and copying the exact photos that the person has posted to impersonate them that's not done from


hacking into social media or taking information that's store within them that is done by taking information that people willingly post on that social media, but that's beside the point uh what I'd like to say is that, if


if social media is in fact being targeted by hackers at for and being a golden target for hackers because of the vast, vast amount of uh so called personal information that they store on it what more for things like online retailers like amazon what about because let's say on instagram we never get asked to input our credit card details


at most we have we sign up with a phone number and email address and a username, what about uh online retailers like amazon which which directly ask for credit card details our bank account details or our home addresses and where we stay around the world


I would argue that those are also, larger larger targets to be going after in fact for these kinds of uh hacker attacks, and ultimately social media uh the data used by social media companies


is mainly just to tailor advertisements to our own personal preference, because, like I said things like , although all our uh things like our email addresses and phone numbers could get leaked out our uh


there are few I feel that there are a few negative consequences to that if any because for for for example last few years although they have been large uh several large data breaches in many companies, in the end this data features also do not amount to anything


as the vast amounts of information on the internet internet generally become incomprehensible to most hackers to cipher through it uh decipher, at the end of the day the information that social media companies are selling and transmitting between themselves and private corporations other private corporations


is, information about how we uh our our behavior on that on that platform how we click on things what our personal preferences are, and so I would argue that there's nothing inherently wrong or dangerous about that data even it was leaked


and the opposite cost to that is having our social media our platform with drastically less functions or having to pay a monthly subscription to keep the platform running and this would ultimately uh


decrease our use of social media or wipe it out completely because of it's general inaccessibility so I will argue that this harmful data that there's there even if they're selling it the data I feel is harmless and


by selling it they continue to remain uh free for users to use and that is ultimately the a price worth paying


okay, debate topic one


okay so so should sex work be legalised I'm saying yes because it's basically just like any other job that we all have, it's likewise it's a job for them as well just that the context of a job is different and


uh different people are brought up with different opportunities and more often than not women enter the sex industry because this sex works sex work is the best opportunity available for, them and you know to make a living uh they they have to accept the job no matter what and


and also I think it's similar to the rest of us where, we may be working at a job that we may not we may not like it uh be it our boss or colleagues or or uh clients we still do it anyway to make a living so I guess so so that's why I'm saying yes to being it legalised


(ppc)


okay so for sex work when they sign up for this job they do have like terms and conditions that they have to go through to make sure that they are not coerced into the job the it's something of their choice so it's uh their own rights to work for this job uh they are


aware of the uh the the the the views that will get they will get like being like they were being said to disrespect their own body uh or to, you know something that's bad for their dignity but I'm sure they are aware of all these things but they had to do it anyway to make a living so so in terms of


gender equality uh well I guess, there are certain jobs that uh women would uh will dominate in uh in certain industries and men also dominate in certain industries as well so


so in terms of gender equality I guess it's uh well it's subjective it does it it doesn't really show much on the equality part


okay so in terms of it being it illegal right now so as you said there are already illegal uh works right now but imagine it, imagine the government taking away that and making it illegal completely so you can imagine how much black market jobs grading underground and that's something that the government will not be able to control


and of course being such an illegal activity will mean that there will be more upcoming ones like uh underage people they're they're they'll be more prone to, to to be in this picture now now that I mean there maybe some out there but the the rates of it is right now is still low but once you make it illegal I can I will foresee that the rate would shoot up much higher and that's not we want to achieve right now


my god


hello, I'm so sorry one of my family member went to restart the router


still running, ya where was I


[orh] so I was saying at that the the black market so with it being illegal the number of rates of illegal activities will shoot up much more and much more than what we have right now and that's not something that we want to happen


yup so for sex trafficking in singapore I guess , the, we're making it, uh so to the same point actually so if you make it illegal the rate will shoot up indefinitely for sure so


I guess right now , ya so so it singapore is a small country as we all know so the the rates and the proportion of how this blows up would definitely look much more than compared to the to the other states and countries that that are much more bigger than us so


uh, I would say it's we will be a bit unfair to say that our number is that high


yup so while as a whole it's good for the country but for the individuals who who agree to to step into this career that's not really the the is not uh the best choice for them it's we are basically taking away


their, potential jobs their their earnings and because it's the next best choice that they can have in working and earning for their family so we will be taking away their, career it's like taking away a certain career a a uh a substantial career in singapore and you can imagine how much career is lost because of this law


K,


yes so while I agree to those values , but we know that in Geylang there are a lot of brothels is still going on despite our small country there're so many of these


so that explains that would explain that the demand for this is and uh is rather high and while singapore promotes these values the high, the high


number of people still visiting the brothels still pretty high and I guess in some marriage in some marriages uh people prefer to still you know go go outside and uh


and, and engage someone else so you know it's it's an outlet for them, so uh of the, families have different well uh different how they would work it's different so uh it's not to say it's not uh not us not up to us to say that they cannot do that so it's their own decision it's they're doing something


uh they're going for a a service that's a a legalized service just like massage uh for example so it's well it's kind of a need, for them as well, so it's not up to say us to say that he can't do that


yup so while uh I agree about the supply and demand part , if we reduce the supply people would tend to work around it uh, as as what we all do uh when we can't buy gums here we go somewhere else and bring it in and likewise in this case the number of crimes would go up so apart from sex trafficking itself it will affect the


from the rape cases people don't have an outlet for and then so rape cases might, go up uh significantly as well because of this being illegalised uh so, when rape cases go up it's dangerous for the women here it's not really a win win for everyone it would actually jeopardize uh the the safetyness of the country especially when young girls go out you can't go out late at night still singapore would then


not be a very safe country as we termed ourselves to be by then already


then uh when do we, when do we like move to the next topic or


oh okay okay so, , so ya I mean people would make up excuses when they are you know being caught uh and say oh why are you think you doing this then they would say that oh because it's not illegal uh it's no longer legal for us to go to to you know


uh to to visit the brothels so they have no outlet I mean it will come up more as an excuse for for rapists then yup so that's uh that's that is why I feel that sex work should be legalized


yup , debate topic two, K should so should charity be made compulsory so I'll feel yes because it's an act of giving back to society to help


the needy and by making it compulsory it integrates the idea of charity into our lives and it constantly reminds us to do good uh foster the right attitudes towards people uh in issues in our lives help develop a strong social conscience


a sense of belonging commitment to the community and uh it it just it it's just really beneficial for us in the long term to survive as well


(ppc), yup so without it being uh compulsory so how many of us actually think of doing charity ya probably once a year or twice a year and with so many


causes out there elderlies uh children these children with special needs or animal welfares uh, cancer foundation so on and so forth there are so many of them out there and with us only thinking about it


probably a a handful of times in a year how how do we actually help them in in in achieving a, help them you know we in in in their courses so when if this wasn't made compulsory imagine you can imagine how much more help that they can gain and it's really it's they really need all the help that they can need


they can so there are so many different kinds of things that we can help there's admin IT design, even uh health care, as well so uh with


if everyone were to come together so it it's a really a boost in these causes that would really help the nation as well


(ppc)


ya and


yup so on the point of being uh on having your own flexibility in choosing the cause that you want I mean that is something


uh that that would depend on the individual right so it's it won't be, , you won't be fixed per se so it's really based on your own interest in the cause, so uh so let's say if you're interested in the elderlies in in in supporting the elderlies then that's where you go for and in in that segment and that elderly segments itself there are still so many many uh there are much more


like sub segments that you can look into so I guess there is there are still flexibilities in choosing what you want to support, and and and apart from monetary donations there are volunteering works as well so if you don't want to donate money you can donate your time then by by like uh doing work for them and really physical work


that would support the causes so I guess it's still uh a win win for everyone because they do still have their flexibility in choosing what they want uh which they want to support and and what they want to do for that cause


yup so so another point of why they should be made compulsory it it's really it's, to cultivate how we view


the different people especially who are not really in a uh in good terms physically for example so, uh it helps us to understand those people more


it it made if it would actually make, uh the nation a much more understanding place right now we would be more much more knowledgeable and and what they're facing, what what the what are the criticisms they face


because right now we are not very knowledgeable in those cases like uh uh let let's say people with tourette for example we might not be able uh to be understand how how they feel on a day to day basis and uh so by making this compulsory would would be much more


closer to these people uh to understand what kind of, uh, situations they face and therefore the nation citizen uh all of us would be, more would be more


caring towards them uh it in overall it would be a much more caring nation I feel


(hmm)


K so (ppc) so uh for my closing closing statement, I would say that uh while this is I guess if this is on a bigger picture of uh why


charity should be compulsory is because apart from our individual emotions in our individual thoughts of how they should be it it's really more on the how, this benefits the charities industry overall


so by making this compulsory it benefits them these industries it helps them have better technologies so that they can move forward with the the researchers and and what not so as to you know to enhance and, can uh help everyone who who needs help uh in in those uh in in in in in the causes


so they may not they a lot and more of than not the patients in there they don't have the support they need and but making this compulsory they can finally have that load off, their shoulders cause they know that the other citizens are taking care of them so so that's why I feel it should be made compulsory


(ppc)


debate topic three, K so uh, why should the death penalty be abolished


so I'm saying yes because, there are so many wrongful execution out there that leads to innocent people paying for crimes that they did not commit and which is not morally right as well and as for criminals who actually committed the crime there is no


uh credible evidence showing that the death penalty is more effective than a prison term, and in fact the evidence reveals the opposite and so that's why I'm saying it should, be uh


uh, it should be abolished


yup so on that note was as well on human rights so neither is a death penalty uh, a right for for them as well they wouldn't want to choose that and (ppc) and


it also doesn't deter criminals there's no humane way to kill no matter how you uh execute them uh by hanging shooting or electric chair if there still is then then I mean there is no humane way and


it it makes up public spectacle of an individual's death they make it publicize the the by publicizing the death of someone, or or say that or will announce a death penalty for this person it actually magnifies this situation too much


for the individual, and there are also statistics saying that and by abolishing the the death penalty, the, number of homicide has actually declined so much more and it's not and they have uh they have lower murder rate since the years that they have


abolished this so by seeing, uh, a downward trend of these uh crimes it it's actually beneficial for the country as well


ya so


so relating to your earlier point about if, uh about the prison term being a more torturous one uh, so, so like you said with the prison term being a torturous one also means that people would want to avoid doing crime because they want to avoid


being stuck in a prison for many many years where they will be looking at walls everywhere and so it actually I I would say I would say uh I would feel that the number of crimes would decrease because of that because uh there's no easy way out for them either


uh and, making a prison term is uh torturous enough for them it much more than a death penalty so uh death penalty is then you know not as uh crucial as a prison as a prison term


and I think prison term is really more than enough to uh, to really convey the message that oh we shouldn't do crime, yup it's what I feel


yup so whether or not a person repents or not it's really subjective


so as you uh as you probably know there are restaurants in singapore who uh who have staffs who actually came from prisons they they were out in a about and because they were given a second chance to work in restaurants and, by given second chances they they turn to new leaf they contribute back to the society


and by having death penalty still there, we basically take away their second chance and who is to say that nobody can have a second chance right also because everybody makes mistakes by being in prison they would have you know spend so much time to


kind of uh think back on the on their wrong doings you know and, ya so feel that by, having still having death penalty is not giving people second chances and it it's not a thing that we want to teach the society as well because uh we want a society to have a more caring society uh something that's more understanding and uh


and also feel that death penalty is ironic we punish people who kill people but then we kill them too so it's not an example that we want to set for everyone


(ppc)


ya so uh because singapore, like drug carrying drugs are very serious offence and and when you carry drugs it means you're you go to death penalty straight away and


but what if they're are innocent people involved this they were just they probably happened to be at the wrong place the wrong time or people actually sneaked in drugs in their bag and they didn't know they were carrying it and they were caught, I mean this is something that the victim's family would also feel wronged so it feels sentence death penalty straight away they have no chance to appeal


this so so it doesn't do the family any good either, uh so this it really depends on the cases and ya I feel that wrongful execution can also lead to their family and friends to be uh


to be really upset about this cases and uh it's not going to make them feel any better either if they were to know that oh their son or daughter is going to it's going to die uh for something that they don't do so it's equally


uh bad for them emotionally on this on this matter as well


okay ya, , debate topic one, can we start now or


ya I would disagree to this because while it's also uh it's also fair work that we I agree with you on that portion that is also uh a sort of a work but at the same time is also going to increase the gender inequality uh in the aspect that you know


if if if a women have the right to actually you know , go into this sex work it becomes an option to them and that does not really promote gender equality because it is also a very risky job and also you know it's it's also demeaning to women


, so I would disagree with that in addition the whole sex , the whole sex uh work industry is also very, prone to exploitation so a lot of uh these women may be coerced if not they are actually ,


I would say they they were they were agreeable but then it it it just cause they agree to it doesn't mean like no they should be doing it uh in the aspect, so I think one one example would be like you know, just cause someone was actually coerced into


, doing a specific role maybe uh maybe they were they are being coerced to , uh, resign from their job but that doesn't mean that you know it's actually legally right to actually coerce someone to resign from his job it and does not make it uh ethically right as well


so that's my uh opposition to sex work should be legal


ya I would say the for the inequality part right another example would be if you could actually force like you know , children from I know third world nations into child labour, they may they may agree to it because you know they can see that oh I actually need to work while maybe I'm uh twelve years old but I need to work


however I need to work because you know if I don't work there will be no food on the on the table but does that means that is ethically right I do not agree that is ethically right in that sense uh like you know uh I I'm sure you will agree that like that these children should uh of twelve years old shouldn't be working and it should be actually more of the


government if not the family who should actually be working to make sure that uh to safeguard these people, so I do not agree with that portion and another, another example would be uh another another points will be if we look at the situation in singapore


prostitution is legal, however there's , and is is mainly across like you know a a certain zone in singapore however a lot of there's still a lot of prostitution happening illegal prostitution is happening in singapore in I know massage parlours in like you know homes like recently on the news that was even during the COVID


during the COVID circuit breaker, scenario there were still people there's actually providing you know sex work, in their own homes and they were actually arrested for that , so I would still say that uh uh I'll still I still uh argue that is it should be illegal


and that you know it should not be there should not be any uh options which you just be flat out illegal and you know and you'll make enforcement a lot not easier that sense


hello , okay, shall we continue is is the recording still my recording still on, ya still running


okay uh you were uh you were on your point


I would disagree to that because I think one of the primary reason is that just making just legalizing something doesn't make uh doesn't reduce the, the abuse of of the activity , we we've seen this with uh of course you know singapore is one one of the case example as you can see it's already legalized


if you want to do prostitutions uh if you want to do uh illegal uh legal sex work uh you just have to go for test we just have to not uh solicited however, , as uh given example is that you know it's still rifled in singapore like you know illegal sex work is still very uh prominent in singapore just making it


illegal doesn't mean that it will, , increase amount of illegal , sex work it is happening in singapore at the same time those singapore legalised prostitutions we are still considered as one of the top


countries in the world , for illegal uh not illegal for sex trafficking, in general , especially in asia and we're even listed, uh but the US as one of the, bigger sex trafficking uh countries


uh tier two sex trafficking countries in in in the world which is known tier one uh tier one means you're okay but tier two means you're you know you the uh there's some sex uh trafficking happening over there