across cultures story telling is one of the primary functions of art which serve to record history and culture of it's time which we cannot argue that it is not a huge part of what makes our society the proposition would like to hand their time back to the opposition


the proposition would like to argue the opposition's point of, art not showing the progress of society as using the example of gun violence the reason is that a piece of art is a reflection of society as it represents the beliefs outlooks emotion and passion religion war and power were very prominent themes of the medieval artist


and reflect in almost a lot of medieval art pieces and currently as it brought about the points of the volatile era of the two world wars, impressionism give us a tranquilly vibrancy and colour of the world as it ushered the twentieth century and this was long before it face the harsh realities of inequalities and war however one of the most passionate and volatile era of arts came during the dark years leading to enduring the two world wars


with the advent of film and photography some of the most poignant human emotions were captured war loss of innocents pain suffering and lost of life and racism are the few powerful subjects of the times and this is also current during our times hence gun violence would be


it would make sense that gun violence would be shown on the media, I will like to take a look at my second point of the avant garde period, uh the avant garde period is of time in, in the art where it's translated from old french advance guard or vanguard meaning the foremost position an army of pre advancing into battle


a a definition courtesy of american heritage heritage dictionary of the english language in which within the context of art the avant garde is the foremost position advancing into I new ideas or challenges the conservative status of art of the time, in the theater of avant garde nineteen fifties to two thousands by robert knopf and julia listengarten it explains that the avant garde theater is commonly known to be heavily on social political themes questioning tradition authority and the historical and social order all of which is heavily effected by the society of the time


the avant garde has three stages historical avant garde which was in response to the bulgy art but also its realistic ideals early avant garde art during the cold war period or the collapse of colonialism after world war two and the late avant garde that sprouted from the explosion of the global information age and the internet


the most obvious period of the avant garde which very clearly as a reflection of society is the early avant garde and the late avant garde period the early avant garde period there was a lot of terror uh there was a lot of terror and unrest amongst the people for fear that the third large scale war a complete human nihilation might happen


this heavily influence the avant garde movement as they cause many artist to focus their art based on the outlooks of the people in power at that time one such company was bread and puppet theater according to their website they are founded in nineteen sixty three by peter schumann, bread and puppet was a company that use performance as a form of political activism their shows were heavy on anti war themes with their nineteen sixty eight piece fire demonstrating against US involvement in south east asia specifically the vietnam war the company's place are affected by political and social issues within it's time such as militarism


capitalism and ecology during this period according to a book called theater histories an introduction by philips zarrilli artist shadowed boundaries between up and art and life inclusively making the audience no longer passive and highlighting or mirroring the issues of society with new forms concurrently breaking the norms of traditional art


the avant garde movement accelerated through the late twentieth century and early twenty first century or the late avant garde period, at this stage art are more specifically theater was heavily impacted by the post world bloom of globalization capitalism and the internet whether media began to influence the language of theater blurring the lines of theater and film and bringing media into theater


artist begin to explore theater beyond text that was once considered sacred and challenge it's dominance and expending the expressive range of the stage multimedia theater theater which use mediums like sound light et cetera mediums never used before in theater begin to sprout which distinctly went against traditional


art as the performance was no longer focus on the text complicity was one of such company establish during this period and they were founded in nineteen eighty eighty three and produce work that make use of unique state language tightly chronograph on somber work with innovative lighting sound and video design


they goes to show that in the case study of avant garde movement art serve as an outlet for artist to dispense their commentary of society be it directly or indirectly the proposition would then hand the time back to the opposition


the proposition would like to argue that to state the point of the to state the opposition point about laws and social structures representing the society's progress of the time and the proposition would like to argue that they are not enough to fully encompass


what the society looks like and feels like at it's specific state, and their progress in a sense where art is a creative outlet where artist and people of the time the people living in under these laws and structures are able to explain how they feel and what it's like to actually live


within these time period instead of following black and white laws that only state what, the country might look like but it doesn't actually state what the society looks like at that time, the proposition would hand the time back to opposition


proposition would like to simply argue that news and the media is part of the arts bracket in a sense where it is a form of creative writing and it's a form of creative design


arts is heavily it's broad and news and media actually falls under that bracket as media is called is actually named a platform for art to be disseminated,


maybe certain news like , recordings might not be considered art but I would argue that then visual art is also considered art which news and video recordings would fall under that and also journals and


okay not journals news reporting are essentially written out by specific people in the time period and they're using their words and their personal feelings and what they see at that time and that does does not does that not consist as


art then, the propositions hands the time back to the opposition


the proposition would like to argue then that media and the news is a form of story telling art where it's nearly similar to the proposition's example before of the art of the ancient maya culture


where painting and writing were one in a same to used to record information, and storytelling art was recently used only in the eighteenth century and they're still being use now to pass on the stories of their victories in battle or stories that


should be, should that stories that show the progress of the people at that time especially when art was only brought up and used as, a simple creative form and used for entertainment only in the recent stages of our society


where art was used to disseminate information in the past and now only is used as entertainment but at the same time use to disseminate information as the original purpose of art was used to disseminate information


part one debate topic one


ah okay so , opposition main points for basically stating that uh the school should consider subjective and non academic factors for admission such as like yours uh student's CCAs or community work and uh national


achievement and that err, uh it aims it strives to like instil holistic learning uh in students and uh she also mentioned that grades don't uh solely define the students


however uh what opposition thinks is that schools should not consider, these uh subjective and non academic factors uh for admissions because of uh simply because of meritocracy and uh equality because


such uh subjective and non academic factors do not have a accurate accurate form of measurement as there's no like definite number that is uh placed on each individual student so it is


very like in the grey area and and the people that are, uh looking at the admission portfolios , do not have uh specific set of uh criteria or requirement uh to look to so it doesn't serve as a complete wholesome uh accurate form of measurement uh in the sense of when they admit uh


these students because ah these measurements are in the form of like CCA community work and national achievements so, in a sense uh it's a very broad uh term is a very broad subjective


and non academic so these non academic factors are not, are very subjective and uh is eleven serve as an accurate form of uh measurement and so that's my first point, and my second point is that


streamlining the students via uh, subject are subjective via non subjective and academic factors for submission cultivates the strengths of individuals in uh for further uh this means that like


when you streamline students based solely based off solely based off their, academic uh factors this means that the people who do well who studies who who does better in academic factors in in in their academics


they will be streamlined into like schools that are meant for them and so , so it results that results in them, pursuing academic driven jobs uh but students without the academic flair they can enter schools such as like la salle or SOTA or singapore sports school in singapore so basically these uh definite


form of streamlining in their early years of education, ensures that they their strengths are cultivated in, like in proper depth instead of, instead of just allowing students that are weaker in academic, to go into schools that still pursue like academic to that sets them for academic driven jobs in the future so this brings me on to my third point is that there's redundant accepting of students uh without proper academic fit


so this means that students without the proper academic fit when they enter these these better schools these better in academic schools they don't necessarily uh fit in entirely, uh because they're entering through like direct admission or like like using their music or art talent that they have but


this means this means that they aren't on par like academically with the other students in the same level so this allows this this makes them like lag behind their peers


academically and and they will have like enormous pressure trying to keep up with their peers, so if this like external, if this like , these external non academic talent that they that they have


they can be properly cultivated in like less academic driven schools, uh and uh, ya so I would say that their talent in the other areas will become diluted because they focused their attention on like we forces the students to focus their attention on also academic ah academic driven goals in the uh better schools


uh ya so I pass my time on to the proposition


(ppc), (ppc)


alright okay so uh, uh, uh proposition has uh


uh, uh mentioned that if schools, err, uh consider like subjective and non academic factors, for admissions and then the students won't be like busy pursuing


uh academic staff and that uh their soft skills will be like like enhance ah like they will learn skills like communication compassion et cetera, err


but I feel that like, even if schools uh streamline student based off their academic solely uh these soft skills can still be taught in schools uh regardless


and uh actually this will actually like, uh they they will put I mean they will put the emphasis on academics uh in their early years but when they when they streamline students based of their academic uh results then then it will like divide the students that are weaker and better in academic


in and in in academic ah in their academic so the students that are weaker in their academics can go ahead, to to pursue these soft skills even more so than the than the the the ones that are better in academics because they will in the end they will they will pursue more academic driven jobs


like et cetera like to be a doctor or to be a lawyer so , so in the end when they grow up when they go for like internship and stuff in their schools they will still be able to learn these soft skills and those that are weaker in academics they will pursue maybe something that they are better at like music or art and


and their soft skills will still be be able to they will still be able to pick up these skills lah eventually, uh and also proposition also mention that SOTA and la salle all these schools they provide I mean they only admit the best of the best students


uh and then it puts those people that are neither here nor there in a in a big disadvantage but I would say that , I will say that their schools like like ITE in singapore that actually still uh still have a lot the uh I mean they still have like students that are much weaker in their academics they still have like a wide range of options uh in those schools so


and those schools also provide a lot of like hands on skills ah and and hands on skill sets that they will require in their workforce then the those students that are, (ppc) that I usually like not say the cream of the crop but not say very in academics also these people uh these people can also a lot of them enter like polytechnics local polytechnics and uh


but they they aren't necessary put in a bad err, in the in the in the disadvantage cause they still can pursue a, like a diploma and


and they still can and they weren't put in a ya in a very big disadvantage, ya k pass on my I pass on my time to proposition


(ppc)


uh okay so uh I want to end my argument uh even though err, it enables different a societal different I mean different uh


students very different students based off their academic factors, err, I mean if like we merge them together then it will provide like a more holistic education but uh I think the underlying factor will still be there these students that are


innately still weaker in like their academics they were still in the end they will still struggle to meet up with their peers and then it will still uh it will still put like enormous, pressure on them uh regardless lah so in the end they will still not be able to exactly fit in with the students that are


smarter than them ya if they got in through like non academic factors, okay


part two debate topic two


okay uh so proposition has mentioned that uh the chinese dialect should be offered as a mother tongue language so that it should be preserved as it has like have have a very historic


culture uh ya but I would I would say that other than, wanting to preserve the chinese like chinese dialect uh and its history


it is not a universal like language after all so there is, it's not uh it it it isn't it shouldn't be necessary and it shouldn't be offered, as a mother tongue language but uh rather it should be like offered as a third language as an option like how french or german can be and it can be taken as a language in o-levels or a-levels but it's not taught


like common school curriculum, so ya so in that way the students that want to take up the the this third language like this third language they they still can


and in that way those students will help these chinese dialects to be preserved anyway, also furthermore err


the supply of dialect speaking teachers uh would be a struggle and it will be costly for the schools in singapore as they will need to meet the demand uh or students taking up this uh mother tongue language


and also secondly ah have and also having chinese dialects offered as a mother tongue language it creates a divide in society because in society that has not only chinese there's malay and malays


and indians and , there is a divide created because only chinese dialect is, uh offered and so err


and so ya because like, like indians and malays they also have their own dialects as well, so only offering, chinese dialects are, it divides the population and also as I mentioned


previously uh chinese dialect is not a universal language uh there's a reason why the singapore government , enforces uh chinese to be a mother tongue language uh that's because


it is uh it can be used , is a universal language and is and it is a common language to just like english so there is a need to learn uh, languages like this because it serves uh it serves a purpose uh


ya talking to the, the the chinese nationals in the other in other countries and uh opposition also !oops! sorry proposition also mentioned ah that chinese dialects should be offered as a mother tongue language because it allows the students to interact


with the older generation but , the fact is that a lot of older generation elderly they can speak bahasa melayu or chinese


uh because that's how they're being brought up so I don't think that this would be a huge problem that, uh, serves as a solution and that and leads to that chinese dialect should be offered as a mother tongue language so ya I pass my time on to proposition now


okay uh proposition has okay firstly proposition has mentioned that the when the third language options uh


are deemed optional for the students like to take french and german ya is like being seen as a burden and a lot of students, do not want to take on these languages as it doesn't benefit them individually


but I would say that if chinese dialects uh will be offered as a mother tongue language, then then in the same way it will also be seen as a burden and uh it will also ya it would also be seen as a burden


as it doesn't benefit them like err, individually so they don't see a point in if they don't see a point in taking it then forcing them to take it as a mother tongue language, uh will will


will not like spark joy in them when they're actually studying for the language so if we put it as like a third language option then those those students who, are more passionate about like learning about the history and the culture of


the chinese language then those are the people that take the language and when they take the the this language like seriously because they choose to then then that will be even more like beneficial, because they take part and they have the passion and they choose to like study chinese dialects


so it will it will be better as a whole in society if these select field who have their actual passion uh pursue it rather than like enforcing everyone to do something that, they do not want to


oh and proposition also mention that (ppc) that uh the, MOE can like teach a small group of teachers and like like pass, the knowledge down


so the supply of dialect speaking teachers, uh, wouldn't be a struggle , uh yes in a sense but uh but passing down the these like knowledge to the teachers there's still many like still many teachers that will have to undergo like vigorous training because


a lot of them in that generation also do not know perfect chinese dialects, uh so having to allow them allow them to I mean having to enforce like mandatory uh trainings to teach them chinese dialects from the from the beginning from the very basic


to the higher level uh it will definitely be err, uh is like a time problem a time issue or it will also be a struggle trying to collate all these teachers to uh come together to ah like learn chinese dialect from the basic ah so it will require time and effort


err, ya so it will still be it will still be a hassle err, ya and ya so now I pass my time on to proposition


okay okay so, uh proposition has mentioned that uh,


in the first place languages like english and chinese are mandatory for students, , but the debate here is about uh it's about chinese dialects which is definitely not a universal language which I have mentioned


before so it still defeats the purpose in making it mandatory uh and, mine and the point still stands that uh making chinese dialect


uh compulsory, for those students that uh do not want or do not have the passion for it are ultimately they they will still see as a burden, and ya


part three debate topic three


uh okay so, proposition has mentioned that learning outside err, uh outside the classroom provides like experiential learning uh, and also like internships et cetera but proposition has also mentioned about like lab work chemistry science labs in schools et cetera


but I think like by definition a classroom should be a learning space is in the room in where in which both children and adults learn, so in that definition I would classify lab work uh in schools to be classified under classroom as well


so ya so that point in that sense these classroom experience still enhances their uh their learning but also proposition has mentioned about like internships et cetera


uh, ya however I would say that uh learning is best still uh inside the classroom uh, basically because it is a contain


targeted safe space for students to develop their, personality and also their soft skills that they can learn outside of the classroom uh because more so because it is in a contained safe space


uh teachers will have err, direct feedback and uh, will be able to still be able to allow them to learn such skills for example like conflict resolving skills and also more more importantly like presentation skills in a classroom where they present to their peers where they present to their peers and like


it allows for them to, it allows for them to make be able to make mistakes in the classroom I like for example I like internships, uh even to make mistakes in the classroom and be and the teachers will be able to be there with them uh to correct them and to like teach them directly in the safe space in the contained safe space lah


, so like it also develops, uh, their students' team spirit and , and these sort of like direct learning


teaching them like first hand directly uh it teaches them how to get along with the different students uh from different students from different culture backgrounds in a targeted safe space


so maybe let's say you go for like learning journey et cetera all that it also teaches them like these soft skills lah, but but having them contained in the classroom like


it still allows the students to it still allows the teachers to give them like direct feedback because once they have made the mistake uh in like this uh, in the lesson plan that is like very specific to their needs it allows the students to


uh learn and grow uh uh in like the the in the aspects also lah in the different aspects also, , oh okay so my second point would be that it provides the students to learn like


uh organisational skills so for example because uh learning is best inside the classroom right so this also uh relates to having exams for the students so


when they prepare for examinations err, there was they will need to organise their timetable and they will need to have a like a sort of schedule strict schedule to follow and the plan and the plan nah so they will learn their learn uh organisational skills in that aspects lah


, ya and also uh thirdly because is there's a direct feedback sort of system going on in the classroom the teaching styles can be modified according to like each student's need cause it will bring to


uh it will it will bring to light the different student's needs uh very clearly in a contained space cause and and therefore the teachers will then be able to help each individual students with their, how they learn ah I mean like guide them in their learning like maybe some students are visual learners or auditory learners so it allows the teacher to like uh follow a set uh a set planned for the students learning in a classroom


cause teachers can get a clear idea whether their students are following or not and then they can get their doubts clarified immediately, from a teacher ah in a classroom so I would still I would say that learning is best learnt uh inside the classroom so I pass my time now to proposition


so uh, so, proposition has mentioned that, , outside the classroom uh, it's definition can be like day to day life ya day to day life internship and stuff


and that and she also mentioned that uh applying application, for the concepts learnt inside of the classroom I mean applying the concepts learnt in the classroom outside uh they will be able to like truly like understand the concept learnt


but I will say that err, technology is so uh is like ever improving day by day and things such as like what she mentioned maybe touching the


flower or , touching like heat or like actually physically feeling it, , the the list that technology can do now is like show a video of it or maybe or maybe show like show a clip of it or maybe like or maybe you can or can use like virtual reality as teaching stuff


but these objects can also be brought into the classroom like as an example for the students to learn , in that sense concepts learnt outside the classroom day to day it can still be brought into the a classroom


but learning is still best inside the classroom because once these concepts that these soft skills are concepts that can be learnt outside of the classroom once it brought brings it into the classroom the teachers were then be able to monitor the students


will be able to guide them firsthand so in that sense it's guided learning versus unguided learning so obviously guided learning will still be more beneficial for err, the students as a whole


so ya so , ya so learning is still best learn inside the classroom, so I pass my time on to opposition


uh so in conclusion learning uh what I think is that learning is best learnt uh, inside the classroom because uh the direct learning and teaching method can still be applied uh teaching styles can still be modified to individual student's needs because each student's needs are brought to like full awareness to the teachers


and in the in that sense the targeted safe space for, uh the students will still enable them to learn best


schools should consider subjective and non academic factors for admissions


okay so my first point would be that value is gained from non academic education is of importance so nowadays I think everyone is aware that schools generally don't just take into account grades they also take into account non academic factors such as


CCAs national achievements and also , community work so I feel like this is the, this is a better approach to admissions because it takes into the student's holistic learning and it does not just depend on grades because I feel that grades are not something are not the only thing that defines a person some of


some people may not be that uh may not be that great at education but they might be very good at other, other skills such as the arts or sports and this will pave a different pathway for these students so


uh rejecting a person based on their, based on just their, grades I feel that uh it is not , it is not very fair, and my second point would be that,


as I mentioned non academic achievements may not uh may pave a different path for student so , it would allowed for, students to have a different focus so maybe uh students will be able to focus on their


focus on their, uh extra curricular activities more than their grades and also, having a student that is not only , uh who has more


extra uh has more has different skills while allow for the student to also give the, school a better name uh when these students represent the school in competitions or in


uh or when they achieve uh awards they actually increase the school reputation and this will in turn allow for more for the school to have a greater standard


so, now I will, pass the stand to the opposition


so uh as the opposition mentioned so what the opposition mentioned was that , uh it is having , having admissions that are only grade based would provide more


would be more equal, and it uh serves meritocracy, uh however I feel that if, grades if admission was just based on grades then it sort of instills this mindset that inside students that extra curriculars and


uh volunteer work and other achievements are not important for admission or, or rather just to take up this, all these extra activities would be a waste of time and this discourages such activities so what this does to society is that


these students were solely focused on their grades and they were solely they will just memorize their work and, uh I feel like they will not learn the skills that are instilled in them from non academic activities so what this happens it what happens is that uh they are only focused on their studies and they will only be academically driven and after university


when these students go into the workforce they would not possess enough skills, that will help them in their works uh in their workplace because in a workplace uh grades are not what only matters they also these students also need to have


skills such as teamwork , public speaking, and also , compassion and empathy for the environment and the people around them and I feel like uh extra curricular and community work plays a very important part in instilling these skills


and without uh making when these are not factors uh this will be considered not important towards uh students and in the end many of them will not pursue this, and I feel that these skills they also they're also important in uh school level because uh these skills are what makes uh students


holistic because uh just running after grades , it, it provides a very uh pressurized environment for them and ultimately it will harm these students in the end


and uh on the point about, on the point about, uh schools that that schools, like la salle and SOTA and singapore sports school already in uh exists to provide students with


provides students who are academic uh not academically inclined uh the opposition mentioned that these schools exist however these schools also require, students to have exceptional performance in their extra curriculars so these schools only their admission rates are not low as well and they only provide


admission to the best of the best so what will happen to, students who are average at both their, uh co-curriculars as well as their education then this put a disadvantage towards


these students because they're neither in they're neither here nor nor at in universities and it puts them at uh big disadvantage so when, universities and schools take in people who are both


, who uh who have both uh grades and also , other uh uh academic achievements it allows for, it allows for students to have a balance between both and it allows uh for students to have have a place in society because if you just uh if you only


admit a person based on either their co-curriculars or their grades then many people will not, , will not fall in either place, so


with that i, pass the time back to the opposition


uh so the opposition mentioned that, streamlining uh and, admitting students based on grades will provide will allow them to be group with people of similar abilities and those who are


very academically inclined will be put into uh one group and people who are less academically inclined will be put into another so what this does uh I feel that this will provide this will create


discrimination between uh the two groups because you are discriminating someone based on their, grades and what this does is that it divide society so the uh so these students who are uh highly


academically inclined will never get a chance to interact with students who are not so academically inclined and, I feel that this divide society more than it integrates


and they cannot uh learn, from each other as well as learn how to interact with one another and, when , schools admit both uh admit students based on grades as well as uh non academic factors what this does is that it integrates people of different skills and of different interest in the same society or same school and this allows for


different students with different abilities to come together and learn , learn about one another and also pass their skills on to one another, so uh ultimately I feel that schools should really consider subjective and non academic factors for admissions so that the environment is also holistic as well as the


, the, as well as that students are able to interact with different groups of society who have different skills and different backgrounds


debate topic two, chinese dialects should be offered as a mother tongue language


k so my first point on this topic would be that , they say dying language and that it should be preserved so firstly uh chinese dialects have been around for a while especially in singapore it is very prevalent and there are many different chinese dialects however


uh many of the younger generation today are not aware of these dialects or they do not know how to speak them and even, some some of some of these uh younger students don't even are not even able to speak in mandarin fluently so what this will do to the future generation is that


these languages will be forgotten and when these students grow up and they have their own children, uh they wouldn't be able to teach their children about chinese dialects because they themselves do not how uh or do not know how to speak uh in this dialects so I feel like in order to preserve


and continue the uh legacy and to continue speaking this dialects uh these should be offered as a mother tongue language secondly it these dialects also pave a a way for the


younger generation to interact with the older generation because some of uh the older, uh some of the people in the older generation uh do not know how to speak english, and they are they are more fluent in chinese and uh the dialects so this will provide an uh by learning chinese dialects uh it provides the younger generation with an opportunity to interact more with their grandparents


and their parents and learn more about their culture as well, so now I pass my time to the opposition


okay so the opposition mentioned that , the uh dialects uh should be an additional language option like how french and german can be taken as uh O in o-levels or a-levels rather than taught in the common school curriculum and


the problem with this solution is that this makes uh the dialects optional so , uh it would uh most if you think about it most uh students who take the O-levels and the A-levels they don't really


uh they don't really take uh optional languages, uh such as like french and german it it is usually seen as rather like a burden to them to eh take on an extra subject when studying for such a national exam so instead of making it an optional language uh I feel like it should be


it should be taught as part of the curriculum not uh maybe not as a language by itself but it can be taught as as part of the chinese curriculum so uh when, teaching chinese language itself uh there could be a small portion that covers chinese dialects as well


and as for the problem of the supply of dialects begin teachers, this can be solved by uh teaching future, uh teachers teaching future chinese teachers uh these dialects so that uh it ensures that the next generation will still be able to know about these dialects and also understand them because it is easier to teach


, a small group of teachers rather than err, uh who were then pass on this knowledge to their students, so I feel that does the supply of teachers can be solved uh very easily and as for the


and uh and the opposition also mentioned that, uh this err, offering chinese dialects for , only benefits the chinese population and that it might not be fair for the uh malay and indian population


uh for indians uh actually there are already a an array of languages that have been offered for o-levels and a-levels for example err


I think many of us are aware that tamil is offered in schools however languages such as hindi gujarati and bengali and urdu are also offered as o-level and a-level subjects and these can be taken


uh if the student , uh does not speak tamil in their household or is not of uh the heritage and as for malays arabic is also a subject that is offered in o and a-levels so this


these populations already have their different so called dialects offered and I feel like chinese dialects are the one that is left out and have not been offered in schools and also in the national exams


so I feel that chinese dialects should be offered in uh in their as a mother tongue language and with that I pass the time on to the opposition


so uh opposition mentioned that , they mentioned that firstly


uh that uh by offering dialects as part of the school curriculum it it puts a negative connotation to the dialect and that uh students will not students will not uh learn it with joy and pride and by making it optional


people who are really interested in the language, will pursue it however, the whole reason for offering chinese malay and tamil in schools is to instil is to ensure that these languages are


carried on to the future generation and to make sure that this uh students are able to understand understand and speak their understand their culture as well as speak their, native languages fluently because if a chinese malay or tamil were to be optional as well then uh definitely students will not opt these languages and


the society will be predominantly english speaking and uh this is not what and this would , uh, sort of uh misrepresent singapore as uh singapore is a melting pot with different cultures and languages these languages provide the students with an opportunity to learn their culture and learn their language as well as pass it on to the next generation


and , with uh offering dialects it further , it further educates a students on their, on their culture and as for the


as for the uh problem that uh these students might uh see as a burden yes at first uh these students also saw uh learning their native languages as a burden however after twelve years of education


most of them uh uh happy that they know their native language and they're able to speak to, different uh their uh, their own community as well as other communities in their languages and as for the problem of a supply of teachers and how that or it will be a struggle to educate all these uh new teachers with


on dialects I feel like these problems can be solved by err, having online lessons as we all know digital, digital scene in singapore is very saturated and many uh a lot of classes are being held online and


uh these teachers can take a few hours a week to learn this dialects and be uh educated on this so that they can uh educate the future generation, because as uh as opposition mentioned


uh mentioned that many of these teachers are not are uh educated on these dialects and uh this itself is evidence that dialects are dying and that they need to be preserved because if the current generation is not even aware than what more of the future generation right


uh the future generation will be , even more uh will may not even know that these uh dialects exist so, in order to preserve the dialect and also, uh educate the future generations chinese dialect should be offered as a mother tongue language


or at least a part of the chinese uh mother tongue curriculum


learning is best outside the classroom so as a proposition uh I would like to say that my first point would be that experience learning


experience learning is more important uh or equally as important as theoretical learning, so, uh I'm sorry I think the timer is not on


uh so I feel that , experience learning is more important than theoretical learning so if we


uh if we take a look at uh in primary school and secondary school I'm sure that everyone would have gone through learning journeys and learning journeys, are a very important part of uh, uh I feel that it is a very enjoyable part of every student's experience and the skills and the knowledge that people learn from these uh learning journeys is it really sticks to them rather than uh


slogging away in the classroom learning about maybe, uh science through just books and this is the reason why uh even in uh even in the o-levels or a-levels there also


practical components to science subjects such as chemistry physics and biology uh they don't just focus on grades alone they also have lab sessions which further instill uh the knowledge and allow uh these students to understand


uh understand the concepts better and try it out in form of experiments to further enforce the techniques and my second point would be that , uh learning outside the classroom uh provides uh networking opportunities and also allows students to build their portfolio


so this is in relation to uh internships, uh I feel that I would define internships as outside the classroom because uh students are able to go out of the out of their school and academic environment to work in companies and gain


to gain real life knowledge and they're able to work in uh uh work side by side clients and they're able to learn how the working life works, because ultimately after their education they're going to end up in a company or doing what they like so I feel that learning uh is best outside the classroom and it shouldn't just be emphasized uh it shouldn't just be inside the classroom because uh outside learning allows


for a different uh allows for a better experience and uh it really uh enriches a person's knowledge on any subject of the matter so now be uh pass my time to the opposition


so the opposition mentioned that learning is best , done inside the classroom because it is a safe space and it allows the uh students uh it allows the teacher to be in control of the


uh class as well as the the lessons that are taught inside so uh I feel that , this , I feel like uh


we have to review the definition of uh outside the classroom I find that uh outside the classroom should be , not just uh I feel like inside the classroom shouldn't just be inside school I feel like outside the classroom is uh lab sessions uh


uh not just it is just uh day to day life itself, I find that a learning doesn't just stop inside the classroom because you learn uh theories inside the classroom uh you learn, to you learn to uh


you learn the concepts inside classrooms but applying these concepts outside of classroom is what is more important and where that is where the, real learning takes place, cause if you take for example learning heat uh you learn the basic concept of heat in physics in the classroom but you only know uh


you only really understand heat when you touch a boiling kettle and and then you think about it and you say oh my god this is hot that is when you actually learn , the actual concept because it is easy to uh is it is it is easy for teachers to just teach the topics and


and assume that a students are able to learn however when they physically do uh do do it or when they physically like for example in lab sessions when they physically do experiments they learn better as well as even at home when


or rather like uh you might learn about a certain flower in biology but you only truly understand it when you are able to feel it and smell it and , physically touch it uh outside of the classroom and that is where the real learning happens especially for


students who are kinetic learners they might find it more beneficial uh when they are able to learn outside of the classroom because they need to they need they need to be able to experience it and also uh physically touch it of hand


activities uh about the uh about the concepts in order to learn it clearly and as for, and uh this further reiterates the fact about , internships because I feel like uh you can learn all the knowledge you want but you only actually are able to apply it when uh you go to the actual job so without uh actually doing something and just uh learning the theories and the


learning the uh, uh just learning the concepts uh doesn't do good to any student because uh they ultimately need to , try everything out and then learn from their mistakes as they go because uh learning in the classroom can only uh the opposition mentioned that uh teachers are able to correct their mistakes right however


these uh teachers are no matter what they are only correcting, the concepts and the theories that teachers themselves teach because in exam paper you can only ask them about theories and maybe you can ask them about a few application questions but uh definitely teachers are


uh will not be able to see the children uh do uh apply the concepts in real life and then correct them so with that I feel like learning is best done outside the classroom and I will now pass the time to the opposition


so the opposition mentioned that , like guided learning would be better and that uh teachers like can bring uh bring in materials in order to educate, uh these students on the different concepts and also allow more experiment uh


uh experience learning into the curriculum however I feel that this can be done but it cannot be, done for , cannot be done all the time because uh, ultimately teachers are struggling to even finish their uh finish the lesson plans that they have already in place in order to uh equip students with enough knowledge for the examinations


and when you bring in experimental as a experience learning into the curriculum it might be hard to keep up with it, and when, however with outside uh with learning outside the classroom


uh it can be infinite and students have a opportunity to learn independently and where they are not , uh where they are not , inside a box and inside the uh they are not confined with the uh materials that their teachers provide and the concepts that their teachers provide


so with outside the classroom learning uh students are able to experience uh learning at a different level and at a different rate they will be able or they can be as fast as they want and they can be slow as they want


and they can learn at an infinite uh rate and it also allows uh students to learn away from uh, their lessons in the curriculum uh because it uh doesn't eat into the time of uh their curriculum itself so I feel like uh in the end learning is better outside the classroom


okay, okay part one debate debate topic one alright okay so the first debate topic is technology create creates more problems than benefit for the society so the proposition believes this to be true because


for various reasons that technology can actually create more harm and do more like harmful things than good for the society on an as a as a general like population lah, so uh the first point that I would like to bring across is that with technology people's cognitive abilities err might actually deprove rather than improve


so these cognitive abilities that I'm referring to is things like analytical thinking so things like memory focus mental resilience maybe even like things like attention uh and these forms of higher level and higher order thinking


and that the use of technology might actually do harm too so the a study actually found that technology shorten our attention span from twelve minutes to five minutes so we live in a generation you know that that is become very


consumer like so it like the attention that our our attention span has actually decreased quite significantly so it's more than half right from twelve minutes to five minutes and because of which you know we are we are unable to do task that like are prolonged we're unable to keep our attention


for longer that twelve minutes I guess and that has caused like detriment to I guess things like learning it cause harms to maybe students who require long periods of attention to study


because of the use of technology and so in this sense in this study it actually shows that you know technology does create this problem that outweighs the benefits that it brings


to the society another study actually found that people who are online for an average of five hours a day have trouble remembering names so this is another example to show that technology and just simple being online actually


affects the memory and the the brain function of people, and lastly a research actually found that reading books on the other hand so are not other that technology actually enhances critical thinking in a way that things like video games and other forms of technology does not so actually what what these examples


show is simply that technology actually brings uh has a detrimental and a counter intuitive effect of affecting people's cognitive function cognitive ability and it does not bring


the perceive benefits that it does compared to other forms of maybe like err media and and stuff like books and reading moving on to the next point so another reason that


technology creates more problems than benefits for the society is because technology actually decreases human to human interaction and uh by this I just mean like face to face interaction so not accounting things like texting and whatever


yeah so very very simply it's because like the use of technology you know it consumes so much of people's time you know like an average uh people are on their phones for an average of like three to four hours a day


and because of which you know it takes a way a lot of time from genuine and like in real life human interaction actually a study done by this researcher called gartner predicts that by twenty twenty hundred million consumers , uh will shop in augmented reality and eighty five percent customer interaction will be managed without human so


even in this aspect in the consumer aspect you know in the in the business aspect this already decreases the human interaction aspect by a lot, and this is just one of the areas you know uh that that human and human human to human interaction actually decreases because of the use of technology


another study found that one in seven divorces are blamed on facebook and this simply just err means that you know couples are are spending too much time on facebook rather than with each other and because of which


they they end up growing apart and like it it causes these divorces and so it shown that you know technology and the use of technology can cause even couples to to grow apart and and for relationships to be


growing apart you know it and and it can negatively affect the relationships between different people, lastly another example shows that worldwide you know gamers spent more than thirty three million million hours on league of legends and this just one of


err one of the games that are available online currently on top of which you know gamers spend a lot of a lot more time on other games and this is just one of the examples and this shows you know like that a lot of people spend a lot of time online a lot of time using technology


for different purposes that will not benefit human to human interaction there's that that, technology also kind of isolates people from society at times because of the excessive use of technology for entertainment purposes the excessive use of technology just for for their own benefit


because of which you know there's a lot less time for human to human interaction there's a lot less opportunity for people to talk to each other in real life and to spend time with other in real life due to the err use of technology and the excessive abuse of it


yes alright thank you


(hmm)


okay K so you brought up a point about technology being better for learning all I all I understand that you know uh technology actually bring greater convenience to learning


but I think the assumption here is that convenience equals to better learning (ppc) while access access and all that is great other forms of resources or other forms of learning such as simply like teaching in real life


could actually be more efficient or more efficacious to a student's learning so actually recently due to the whole like COVID situation a lot of lessons were moved online and a lot of students were like complaining about how


like they weren't they were unable to be focused during class or they were unable to learn as much over like a an online lesson compared to like an in real life lesson and because of and this example just shows that you know like


although learning can be more convenient online and it can be more accessible it does not necessarily mean that people learn better online and in fact many people prefer actual like in real life resources such as face to face lessons and things like that


another thing that you brought up was about the healthcare about technology uh benefiting healthcare and all that might be true actually I feel that in the first place, technology has a detrimental effect on people's the society's health and well being in general


and so it is arguable that it creates more problems than the benefit it creates for healthcare an example of this could simply be because you know technology has allowed people to live like more sedentary lifestyles like maybe the the adventure of the television


like people like gamers and and and people who simply watch shows everyday it encourages sedentary lifestyles and encourages people to stay home and do nothing and because of which it's actually detrimental to a person's health because rather than exercise rather than go out


rather than do things outside you know they're they're stuck at home consuming the use of this technology and this could create more health problems for them in the future and more health problems for the society in general things like cardio vascular disease


and atherosclerosis all this come as a result of sedentary lifestyle this all this come as a result of things like obesity which is caused also by sedentary lifestyles, so yeah so it's arguable that actually technology creates the problems although it does help to solve it it actually creates more of these problems to begin with and thus


thus the proposition still believes that you know technology creates more problems than benefits for the society let me just move on to my last two points which is simply firstly that technology brings threats to human such as diminish security


and privacy and technology with everyone having access to it right actually a lot of people are vulnerable now to attacks online to to a lot of people put their personal information online a lot of people


put their sensitive information online and these are very easily accessible by by other people, and thus a lot of people have their privacy threatened and and face security issues because of this widely available and accessible information for everybody


in fifties there's a research that shows you know fifty seven percent of the global population has access to the internet and and just like that you know the half of the world already, has information online or has some sort of digital data online that that maybe attack attackers or like even terrorist could have access to should they have the resources in US alone in twenty nineteen there were


one thousand four hundred and seven seventy three data breaches and twenty six thousand eight one hundred and eighty six data requests were made by the US made by US federal agencies in err to google in twenty nineteen


so this shows you know that so many that that the US alone in the US alone you know a lot of a lot of there's a lot of demand for people's information a lot of even advertising companies and media companies actually take advantage of this information to sell their products


but at the same time it breaches the consumers privacy and the consumers security fourteen fourteen percent of internet users in US in the US experience online harassment in twenty sixteen and this also goes to shows that you know


people are very vulnerable to attacks by strangers and and other people, and lastly you know four point two billion data records was stolen in twenty sixteen and and this this this continues to prove the point you know that all the information that people put up online is very vulnerable to being taken and and used for detrimental


effect are and and used against them yes so therefore I believe that you know technology bring threats to humans such as especially in the area of security and privacy and lastly technology


also makes jobs obsolete so an example of this would simple be that number of telephonist in was one hundred and thirty thousand in the nineteen sixties and this dropped to twenty thousand by twenty eleven so technology actually


makes a lot of jobs automated and because of which there is , less of a need for a a lot of jobs and therefore it decreases you know like the job market it decreases the job availabilities and


could potentially reduce the number of jobs available to people almost seventy five million jobs may be lost as companies shift to a more automation in the future, and therefore I believe that you know technology could actually bring a bigger detriment to society could create more province in the area unemployment for society rather then benefit the society ya


stop the recording, we stopped the recording


, I'm ready, part two debate topic two


okay so the proposition believes that scientific research should not be constrained by ethical concerns so the first point (ppc) of why scientific research should not be constrained by ethical concerns is because ethical concerns


are often in conflict with the standards of scientific research and what is meant by the standard of scientific research is the methodology in which data obtained, the accuracy due to the methodology the most accurate method used to obtain data such as randomized controlled trials


might not be the most ethical method or it could conflict with ethical concerns especially in many areas of research so the most effective and efficacious method research method might not be the most ethical option for people to go to


for example in a clinical trial of a new drug maybe ideally you would you would you would choose a randomise group of patients and you give one group a placebo and one group a trial drug however ethical concerns might be raised


even in in things like maybe in choosing your participant group so maybe in a in a more fatal disease maybe there's a higher risk posed to the younger population so children are maybe more vulnerable to the disease or the research method


and because of which the ethical concerns will limit the study group to an older population and because of so it would automatically decrease the accuracy of the result obtained so although it might it might be found to be effective in an older population


it is not you are not able to extrapolate that data and say that you know it's a it's equally effective in a younger patient group, so automat- automatically in this in this scenario ethical concerns would compromise on the standard of scientific research and it reduce the accuracy and the dependency of the data obtained


another (ppc) possible scenario in in this in a similar sort of setting would be maybe the use of placebos in a clinical trial of a drug and this is simply because for example in a clinical trial maybe a form of administration would be required to


to administer a drug a trial drug or even a placebo and this could mean a a fake surgery it could mean a fake injection and all these things pose risk to the participants and it's arguable ethically


that you know giving participants uh the the this this form of administration for example the surgery or like the injection without any usage or without any purpose is actually doing more harm than good


and because of which ethical concerns would mean would would limit this methodology or will would would limit the use of placebos although placebos are actually the ideal way in which the test the efficacious or the efficiency of a drug or the the use of the drug


and whether it's effective against the disease especially if the if the disease has like a high placebo effect, another way in which it it could it could conflict with the standard of the scientific research would even just be in the randomization and (ppc) for example in an participant groups you know if they're if they're told


where they'll be given either a trial or a drug or a placebo many participants might actually not be inclined to participate in the study because they wouldn't know what they are taking and these these these these , err lack of information would could actually pose ethical risk and ethical concerns to the group


and therefore also you know people might not ethically like this randomisation to take place err and because of which it also compromises on scientific research because randomisation is one of the main ways to eliminate bias and to eliminate


a a a skew of the data you know to a certain err selected (ppc) participant group and it could pose bias to the researchers and as well to the participant and it would simply not produce accurate results


therefore I believe that ethical concerns are often in conflict with the standard of scientific research as it will decrease the accuracy and the dependency of the data obtained because the most effective research method


will conflict and is often time in conflict with the most with what is ethical, alright that's my first point


(ppc)


okay so firstly I would like to rebut so you brought up the point that you know , err it could cause like scientific research could actually cause more harm if it does not adhere to ethical concern and ethical guidelines


well part of it is true I feel like often times it could it could be argued that you know it's a necessary a necessary evil so doing more harm now, in your research method in maybe researching maybe the the prevalence in the spread of a certain disease like researching that (ppc) currently and developing a vaccine for that now could actually prevent


further harm from happening if the research was not done in the first place so in that sense, (ppc) actually does more harm to not conduct the study in the long run so looking at things from the long the long run in the long run scientific research could actually be a sort of necessary evil in the development of a certain things like vaccines


or or certain drugs maybe and things like that another another point that you bought up was that that it it is not possible to obtain funding without adhering to ethical consent but I feel like


in certain cases it is still possible to obtain funding without adhering to ethical concerns simply by, not being completely transparent about, what the experiment is about and this is actually done previously by other researchers so while this is not ethical in that sense actually other researcher such as doctor Krugman so this guy he he did like a a study


with hepatitis so there was this like school where with children where where hepatitis was spreading uh very rapidly so he wanted to research like what was the cause of this spread and how hepatitis was spreading but what he told the public and what he told other people was that


I think he was just trying to like investigate may like look like observe the the the school and the children and and to conduct his scientific study in that way but actually what he did was he actually purposely infected


students with faeces faeces from infected patients so like without them knowing in order to to to show that hepatitis was spread by the fecal oral route, and in in his study although he did not adhere to the ethical guidelines and although he was not completely transparent with this data


(ppc) and with his methods in the first place he he actually discovered the two strains of hepatitis A and B he discovered that hepatitis A was spread through the fecal oral route and he discovered that hepatitis B was spread through bodily fluids


and in doing so actually his research prove very useful in the development of the hepatitis B vaccine so in this sense although he did not adhere to the ethical concerns although he did not that it's arguable that you know his methods were unethical


like it was it was almost like a necessary evil for him to do do such a thing because in other ways would not it would take longer maybe to to do an observational study to find out the the the spread of hepatitis or to to find out about hepatitis


and and this could cause more harm in the long run than than compared to what he actually did lah and so this actually just leads me directly to my next point which is that ethical concerns limit the scope of scientific research so in many many trials and many many forms of research


would be limited by ethical concerns because simply because it would be unethical to carry them out so one example of is the one that I brought up previously right with the with the hepatitis and with purposely infecting people with hepatitis


and this is not limited to hepatitis actually this was also done for malaria so people will uh purposely infected with malaria in order to test the efficacy of certain malarial drugs and in doing so it it it prove you know the efficacy of a certain drugs and in led to the development


of certain anti malarial drugs that has proved to prevent further death and further death from malaria and further harms from happening to the society at large yes so not just that you know ethical concerns


uh would have prevented these kind of discoveries from being made or it would have delayed this forms of uh discovery being made and thus I feel like it could actually be counter intuitive and and it cause more harm than good in the long run lah


another example is that you know in nineteen forty prisoners in Illinois they were infected with malaria to test anti malarial drug so there's the one I bought just now and actually in another study prisoners were infected


were not infected but they were tested (ppc) they were used as test subjects for retin A which is uh highly used uh acne like acne treatment, and is proved to be one of the most effective acne treatments currently so it's also something it's and also another study in which like the methods where unethical because they were randomly testing different chemicals on prisoners


but it was seen ethical it was justified at that time because , they they they it was seen as a way for prisoners to like payback their debt to society by being test subject for this but it was also found has argue argued that is unethical it was almost like a necessary evil in order to develop


all these forms of treatments and all these forms of drugs, and this goes beyond the scope of of of of cosmetical research and in other in other forms as well in things like stem cell research for it could be unethical to perform studies on maybe human embryos or gene line or altering the genes of babies


(ppc) you could actually pose a greater benefit in the long run because the research and and the study was done now and and it could lead to the quicker development of, certain uh breakthroughs in the scientific field so therefore I I believe that ethical concerns limit the scope of scientific research and thus should not be constrained by ethical concerns


part three debate topic three, so for this debate topic the proposition believes that marijuana should be legalized so the first reason why marijuana should be legalized is because marijuana actually boost the economy


so there's already a high demand and supply of marijuana in the underground market where marijuana is illegal, and actually in the places where marijuana is legal for example the marijuana industry in the US is actually projected to exceed twenty four billion dollars in revenue just by twenty twenty five


the legal marijuana industry also generated seven point two billion dollars in twenty sixteen alone, so this high demand for marijuana and the and the supply for marijuana actually is shown already to boost the economy and to contribute significantly to the economy in countries where marijuana is legal


and it's actually in the market so therefore we I believe that marijuana should be legalized because it can benefit the economy of countries where it is legalized, the next point on why marijuana should be legalised is because actually the legalising for marijuana could allow for better regulation of the drug


so for example current while marijuana is illegal in certain countries, there's often an underground market which supplies marijuana to meet the consumer demand (ppc) and this underground supply of marijuana and underground market for marijuana would prevent the regulation of marijuana by the government or by a national body


and this would actually increase the risk of marijuana , that that it poses on society because is not regulated illegal and harmful strains of the drug could be marketed instead of maybe more safer options (ppc) and because of which


you know consumers will excessively consume an unhealthy amount of of this of this harmful strains of the drug and it could pose more health risk to people it could pose a greater risk to society and thus


this underground market for marijuana actually causes a lot of harms to the society but legalising marijuana will actually allow for its regulation, the government can control the use of marijuana and can control the marijuana type that is in the market because there are different strains of marijuana and different types of marijuana


and they can also enforce things like lab testing and regulations to ensure that the the best and safest form of marijuana is marketed in the market and thus can ensure that you know the society at large that consumes marijuana would be safe


and it would minimise the risk involve with taking the drug and thus the regulation for marijuana will increase actually consumers safety compared to if marijuana was completely banned and an underground market was


present to regulate the drug instead, and other regulation such as serving size would also allow for safer consumption of the drug by limiting it's supply (ppc) by limiting how much each person can consume marijuana this allows for the government to


no end to regulate how much of the drug is being consumed by consumers and thus it allows for safer consumption by the general population and thus legalizing marijuana and allowing for its regulation would increase consumer's safety and


minimise the risk that marijuana poses on society in the long run


okay okay so (ppc) I think firstly I would like to rebut your point that marijuana could affect performance so you you saying that you know marijuana could bring increase cost to an economy due to


things like healthcare issues decrease performance in the workplace and stuff like that, but I think currently while that may be true but it could also be caused because currently where marijuana is illegal that people consumes and unhealthy amount of it or the unhealthy like form of it


where where there're higher risks and are greater effects, but same thing legalising it could actually cause it's regulation and actually the regulation would actually solve this issue where the marijuana is taken unhealthily and in an an unhealthy amount that would effect performance of the society


and performance of individuals at their work things like that so, yes so regulation could actually solve this issue where that marijuana causes in in terms of cost in terms of risk health risk in terms of performance in the workplace and stuff like that another point that you brought up about the marijuana being


err bad for the environment because of it's err water usage so actually this could probably be solved by importing marijuana so marijuana could easily be produced in places or in countries and economies where


water supply is adequate and it's excess there's more than enough water in order to produce marijuana so this can then be imported to countries where you know where it's there it's there it's it's it's it's demanded, and legalising it could actually also allow for the research and development or safer methods to produce marijuana so as to minimise it's current risk cause currently in in an underground market in an underground


and in and it is illegal many many of the uh suppliers of marijuana would obviously grow it in whatever is the most convenient to them and that's that's where you know all these green house gasses are produce and and these these are where you know because marijuana is not regulated properly


because marijuana is not (ppc) legalised it causes this unhealthy forms of like production and this excess production in these underground market and with this underground suppliers so same thing regulating it legalising it


maybe producing it on the large scale could actually reduce the amount of green house gasses could actually reduce the environmental risk posed by marijuana simply by commercialising it on large larger scale


so on top of that I would also like to add another point so another point is that legalising marijuana could actually reduce black market sales and illegal drug cartels, so legalising legalisation in Colorado and Washington you know has actually caused Mexican drug cartel to lose two point seven billion dollars


and therefore legalising marijuana could take the power away from these drug cartels and from these gangs selling marijuana, in Colorado ninety percent of the marijuana market will be supplied by licensed vendors by twenty twenty and replaced the black market with legal and regulated sales so this also


further shows that regulation can actually do more benefit then harm to the society and even for individuals because marijuana so it's regulated and it's safer for consumption and lastly marijuana is actually also less harmful for health


than alcohol and tobacco which are already legal even things like nicotine found in smoking marijuana is is just simply another form of of this and it's actually less harmful for your health so things like alcohol and tobacco and nicotine


are actually all found to cause cancer heart failure liver damage if taken in excess so the key word here is excess and if marijuana is taken in excess yes it is possible that that all these health benefit all all these risk will be posed


and there is always a risk however it is arguable that you know legalizing it and regulating it would prevent these risk from taking place should compared to a scenario where it's illegal and it's unregulated so


six people actually die from alcohol poisoning everyday in the US alone but no recorded case of death from marijuana overdose so it's already safer than alcohol and if it's regulated all the more it will be safer to consume compared to other other things like alcohol


and nicotine which also causes things like lung cancer, and and stuff like that doctor david nathan so this guy is a clinical psychiatrist and he said that in several several respects even sugar poses more of a threat to our nation's health compared to marijuana


and because you know there's already so so many of these toxins and these things that pose health risk while it is important to consider the health risk involved with marijuana I I feel that regulating it and legalising it will actually


enable the government to better control the risk involved, with marijuana and to reduce the risk that it poses to society in a survey done you know seventy two percent of people actually think that alcohol usage is more dangerous than marijuana use so all these all these stats and data actually show that


alcohol is already a a worse toxin compared to marijuana and while alcohol is legal currently in every state in every country in most countries all the more marijuana should also be legalized


so that it can be regulated and because it's simply less risky and poses less health risk to individuals consuming it, so therefore the benefits of legalizing marijuana well outweigh the risk and the harms involved and therefore it should be legalized


alright thank you back to you


part one debate topic one


okay so err for your first point you raised that technology will like deprove the health of like people who use technology such as their cognitive abilities their focus and stuff but err I would like to bring up the point that in fact actually technology has increased err learning


for people because learning is made like way easier through technology and like for example through the internet and through our phones, so uh nowadays with the help of technology people can actually find information or even educational resources such as e books or like like online resources uh via the internet and


err in the United States it there's a study that shows that actually the usage and the borrowing of academic resources from public libraries actually dropped by thirty percent over the past two decades and this just shows that err the


err citizens in the United States actually prefer learning from the internet and through e books because it is err convenient and it is fast and also it is less time consuming cause people don't have to like go physically to the library so in fact


this may be an incentive for more people to learn and to seek educational resources compared to if technology wasn't around and it is more inconvenient and harder to learn


so err yes I rebut the point that technology err deproves and reduces people's cognitive abilities to think and for to analyse things and to learn


in general and on the point of uh learning and the convenience to learn definitely learning is not only for students because , adults that are already in the workforce are also trying to upskill themselves and actually there's a study in the United States that states that seventy seven percent of US firms are currently already using online learning and E learning resources for their workers


to up skill themselves and to learn new skills and to uh grow and be better at the skill set and the job that they are doing and it it also showed that E learning for workers actually increase


the workers' income and also the income for firms and forty two percent of US firms stated that their err firms actually profit more and like earn more revenue after their workers go through online err E learning


to upskill themselves so err I believe that technology definitely help us to learn as well and definitely you said that technology reduces the


human to human interaction and like reduces the chances for relationships to be err stronger and for people to form closer bonds but I beg to differ this is because


technology definitely helps to connect people around the world also for and also technology definitely makes communication with people even across the globe like way easier lah so by it is actually found that by twenty twenty four point


eight two million people in singapore would have smartphones and with smartphones people can do a lot of things such as uh use social media to connect with their friends connect with their families to share information


to share news and stuff like that and if there's four point eight two million people in singapore alone can you imagine the number of people around the world that would be smartphone users by the end of twenty twenty twenty twenty two, ya so lastly I would like to bring up the point also that technology definitely improve our quality of life in terms of the healthcare so


sixty percent of healthcare organisations have actually started introducing the internet of things into their facilities and that can help and that actually help to cut clinical cost and also operational causes


and these also reduce inefficiency in the healthcare industry by twenty five percent which is equivalent to about a hundred billion dollars per year this is because doctors and the healthcare industry can use like medical devices medical innovations


to improve healthcare and to give better treatment to their patients and also the fact that in the healthcare industry a lot of data of like let's say the patient's , ya the patient's data and the patient's medical history are all stored online over like large data bases and


definitely technology helped to improve healthcare and in this sense lah ya so,


okay I'll like to rebut your point about technology removing jobs from the market because I feel that technology actually introduces more jobs into the market for example jobs such as social media manager software designers programmers


and jobs like that they were not they did not exist like decades ago when technology wasn't around so actually instead of technology removing jobs from the market I feel that there is a switch and a change in the type of jobs available so


actually it is estimated that about hundred and thirty three million new jobs may emerge by twenty twenty two due to technology redevelopment alone so,


and also definitely , technology the and the introduction of technology into the society actually increase the revenue worldwide for many countries because , technology comes in the form of like medical devices applications and stuff like that and definitely not only will technology bring jobs to the market for the people but also


increase revenue and profit for the countries world wide yup so , to wrap up I would like to conclude that technology and conclude my point that technology actually brings more benefits then problems to the society


our time is up right okay


part two debate topic two


okay so err you bought up the point that scientific research and ethical concerns are in conflict with each other in terms of like many aspects such as the research methodology and stuff like that but I would like to bring up the point to rebut that


to rebut your point that actually if there were no ethical concerns and uh there were no ethical restrictions as to what research scientist can do this could actually bring harmful consequences as well


so if there are no ethical restrictions and in place in the research industry the uh scientist and researchers may actually have the incentive or the urge to like cheat in the


to cheat on like err fabricate evidences and fabricate data and stuff like that if they are driven by profits and, the researchers may also make use of the freedom they have


if err research is not constrained by ethical concerns and, so one thing that I would like to bring up is that there are many codes and policies world wide that govern the research ethics and what can or can not be done in a research setting so for example in Singapore there is actually the Singapore statement of research integrity


and in the US there is the american institute of research code of conduct and there are many more of such policies and code codes of conduct around the world and this just shows the importance of ethics when it comes


to conducting research so I would like to bring up an example , of what could happen if uh scientific research is not constrained by ethics so for example


honesty is a moral value right and so it's an ethical concern and if a scientist is dishonest and is uh driven by profits then uh they may do things like fabricate data fabricate uh experiments just so that his


product or his invention can be , approved and marketed just to earn the money and if let's say these experiments are fake and are false then there is a risk that the product is not safe and if the product goes into the market and consumers buy the product and use the product then


this will bring so much danger so much harm to the uh people and the consumers of the product, , okay so I would like to bring up an example of this infamous scientist I'm sure we all heard of him he is uh Hwang-Woo-Suk and he is a south korean uh researcher that was researching on stem cells and stem cell lines


and err what he did was that he fabricated a series of experiments and actually published them in like journals and it was a published to the entire err science industry world wide lah and if let's say err auditing was not done and he did not get caught


what could have happened was that other scientist could have conducted other scientific experiments based on his results and because it involves stem cells and stuff like that the model organism or the subject of the research are actually humans and embryos


and this could bring so much risk to the life of humans and the embryos so this are just examples of how there may be harmful consequences if


research is not constrained by ethical concerns and if they were no regulations or no code of conduct that the researchers have to follow and if the researchers just have all the freedom in the world to research on what they want and or do whatever they want to do


I would like to bring up another point on how, researchers need to follow the ethical uh code of conduct in order for the research industry to even thrive because researchers needs to be accountable to the public and also to the government sector


in order to get the support the support from the public the support from the government , because funding from the government and funding from the public are so necessary in order for uh researchers to have the funds to conduct their studies and their experiments right


and if , there are no funding then the research industry basically dies down and , and if the research industry dies down then we would not have new inventions new innovations and we would just the the global community would just be stagnant lah so


ya and so in order to gain public support and government support the only ways to adhere to ethical norms which is in this case ethical concerns and so that people would support the work of the researchers


and so that the world can continue moving on and improve and ya come up with new innovations and stuff ya so back to you


okay so you brought up the point uh the examples of scientist and researchers purposely infecting people with hepatitis and malaria in order for them to conduct their studies right


but one thing I would like to bring up from that example is that the people and the public outside of the science industry were probably not aware of this when this happened , but


I would like to let like to ask you to think of the scenario what would happen if let's say all ethical concerns and ethical restrictions are removed entirely and this would definitely get around the news and around the world and people will know about it and


so ya this this brings me to my point that , not having ethical restrictions on the on research will actually may actually spark social unrest and public unhappiness this is because everyone has different views right like people have views based on their religion or their faith


stuff like that and so to to different like for example like the term life itself may mean different things to different people like some people may think oh embryo is considered a life and some people may think oh a fetus


is only considered a life if after the heart develops and after the heart starts beating they may even be people that think oh animals may not be considered life, uh life or that or that humans are considered like a form of life only after birth so like stuff like that it it will really struck so many controversies uh so many conflicts around the world


and like , ya so this really boils down to the question of what is life and , is very it is a very controversial topic I would say so, in the sense in order to protect err like world peace and protect like societies from not go not becoming chaotic and stuff like that I still feel that uh scientific research should be constrained by ethical concerns


so that there is like, it is not like pushing pushing the boundaries pushing the limits and so if it's in this comfort zone then the world will be a more peaceful place and ya that sums up my point


part three debate topic three


okay so you brought up your point about how marijuana can actually boost the economy for countries in the world but I would like to rebut this point this is because I feel that your statement and your point


does not take into account the other factors such as increase in causes due to the consumption of legal marijuana to list some reasons why cost may increase there can actually be increased hospital visits


uh increase treatment for people who consume marijuana because they are addicted to it so addiction treatments it can lead to the lost in worker's productivity


uh which can reduce the revenue and the profits for uh firms and essentially the country , and also increased crime rates and also there may be environmental damage which is also a cost so to elaborate further on some of this reasons why it cost can increase first one is loss in worker's productivity


it is found that workers who consume marijuana actually have seventy five percent higher absenteeism rate compared to err workers who does not consume the the drug and this just means that if


marijuana is made legal and more people consume marijuana then uh more workers uh will suffer a loss in productivity and more firms will incur losses and this will not boost the economy because profits may not be


as high lah so for the second point I would like to bring up a point on err environmental damage because marijuana or like cannabis plants in general may require actually more than double the water


the amount of water compared to average plants and other plants, and this err reduces the water available for other more essential users such as agriculture of other plants and also it may threaten wild life also


the, also if err marijuana or cannabis plants are grown indoors they actually require this species of plants actually require a lot of electricity, for lighting heating and ventilation of the uh cultivation area and this actually uh leads to the emission of green house gases


and it was it it is estimated that the amount of green house gas emitted is actually equivalent to almost the green house gas given out by three million cars in one year and this means that actually , cultivating and growing marijuana for legal use will actually bring detrimental effects to the country and may not boost the economy as what like what you said and so


another point of mine is that you , is to rebut your point that uh legalizing marijuana can actually increase consumer's safety , I would like to rebut this point because I feel that marijuana should not be taken in the first place to list some symptoms of marijuana consuming marijuana can actually cause a person to become high due to the secretion of


of this chemical called dopamine and marijuana also increase the chances of clinical depression, worsen mental disorders and distort one's sense of uh one's uh thinking and also their sense


this may include distorting their sense of time hurting their motor skills and also the loss of self control and they are just unable to think, straight and think properly so I feel that marijuana should not be even taken in the first place because it is harmful for the human body and can lead to a lot of negative consequences


yup, back to you


okay, while I do agree that some of the points that you raised may be true I would like to bring in this new point that marijuana can actually lead to chaos in the country and in the society this may be in the form of uh increased car accidents


because if people consume marijuana and then go on to drive it's like drunk driving and they may just like , get into like more frequent car accidents because their motor skills are actually like not working properly and also they may like lose their self control


so , in two thousand and five two hundred and forty two thousands of the emergency room visits in US hospitals are actually due to the consumption of marijuana and a large portion of this are actually due to


car accidents like the people the victims of the car accidents and the car accidents occur because the driver consume marijuana and also marijuana can lead to increased in


err increase in crime err and increase in crime rates yeah because when people consume marijuana they are unable to think properly and they have the tendency to act rashly and like because they are not in a sound


sound they don't have like they are not in a sound state of mind yeah , so in the US almost forty percent of arrested individuals were actually tested positive for uh the consumption of marijuana and when they committed the crime so this just shows that err like


marijuana has such err has this ability to like distort people's thinking and like this can lead to social chaos and like chaos in the society and


for your point of how legalising marijuana can actually lead to fewer underground market and black market sales of marijuana I would like to suggest that actually there are many other ways of reducing and reducing black market


sales of marijuana which is one of them would be having stricter laws because uh I feel that in many countries where marijuana are illegal the laws that govern like that govern the country actually does not punish the people


very and it's the laws are just not very strict in general so that's why people are, like very driven by profit and they are unafraid of getting caught because the laws are not strict enough another way that we can reduce the black market sales of marijuana is definitely raising awareness among the public


on the the negative symptoms and the negative effects of marijuana and I feel that , by raising awareness such as educating the people definitely people will be able to like discern more properly because there is more perfect information in the society and


therefore consumption of marijuana will decrease so as long as the people are don't have like as long as there's no demand for uh marijuana or like lowered demand then definitely black market sales and underground the underground market will definitely


become smaller so yup just to wrap up my point I feel that and my stand I feel that marijuana should not be legalized in society because definitely the negative effects of marijuana I feel


outweighs the benefits ya


the ban of organ trading should be lifted within singapore


so okay I'll start first I think that the organ trade should be legalised because it would potentially help to solve a severe shortage, and save lives like let's say in singapore right the waiting list for kidney transplant it's like up to nine years


and patient actually waste time due to wait and by legalising organ trade this could potentially eliminate this problem, because in norway and spain they lifted the ban of organ trade and then this shorten the waiting time and actually doubled the donation rate in the country


and for iran they made kidney trade legal in nineteen eighty eight, and now they're the one of the only location that are not suffering from organ shortage, ya so and also with doctor <P1>lee wei ling</P1> that actually she actually mention that


she actually mentioned a point that I think is very relevant that if donor can be properly cared for and if monetary incentive must a potential living donor more willing to it makes a potential living donor more willing to save another life what's wrong with allowing that


but I think along with same line is like sperm and egg donation surrogate pregnancy, they they it also falls along the same line because people have the right to decide what they want to do with their body, so if you are saying organ trade is is illegal right then why is sperm egg donation


legal because it also like using your body to for monetary purposes what, I think like sperm and egg, can be can be compare to organ


but I don't think there's a need to, make organ trade illegal, so ya that's why I, think


I think your points are very valid but on on the note of kidneys right do patient actually need two kidneys to survive, like you can survive on one kidney right, but so let's say if you can


let's say if you can survive on one kidney, then why not


and also I think on on your point about organ prices, even if you don't legalise organ trading in singapore there's bound to be black market, so in black markets right these organs would be priced at very exorbitant organ prices lah and


let's say if you legalise organ trading people are more willing to donate their organs because on this monetary incentive, so essentially it's increasing the supply of these organs that people actually need and black in black markets right the demand for organs far exceeds the supply


so that's why the prices are very high due to this shortage so if legalised right the market economy will allow for greater efficiency because when people are more incentivised to donate their organ, the supply increases and then people don't go to the black markets anymore because they can find it on like regulatory market


so the prices would go down and it will be more affordable for the general public so let's talking about inequality between the rich and the poor if it's made more affordable then the then the general public not say like the very poor or very rich


they they can access to it as well, so if maximizes society welfare in as a whole so I think that organ trade should still be legalised


I think will that that were some very good points that you raise especially about the point that doctors should do no harm but let's say if an individual he decide that he wants to donate, his organs , it's not like he goes to a doctor and ask for a prognosis and say okay you should donate your organ because like you're healthy that that kind that kind of thing you know so it's like let's say if an individual himself want to donate his organ isn't it his own right to decide what to do with his body


and not like how the doctors are trained to follow the medical oath and everything


yup, but what if what if let's say like, and then, what if like by donating your organ like let's say this individual donates his organ he actually has a potential to save another person's life


so isn't that doing good


(mmhmm) but that's more but isn't it that more of organ donation instead of organ, trading, like you can't trade your organs after death, and for singapore is opt in so uh opt out of donation


so I feel like organ trading applies more to like living people, instead of, and then they wanna donate that like trade their organs, or that kind of thing, because I understand that some most of the time when people die of like brain like brain death then you can donate


but if your heart stops you can't really donate right because your organs are damaged, so ya ya so like that's why I think that, the ban should the the organ trading shouldn't be banned because


even if you ban it right there will still be, the black markets, and everything else so like, if you lift the ban it will be win win situation for everyone it's just, the doctor's medical oath that's standing in the way


so ya


(mmhmm) but lifting the ban in singapore that means that we can engage in international trade of organs, what so that kind of solve the supply problem