oh I see one minute fifty two


part two debate topic


is a known fact that technology has helped tremendously in peoples quality of life as long as


there are working efficiency which was the first place it was invented which was what it was invented in the first place however it has had a negative impact on peoples interpersonal skills and we know this is one of the important soft skills that we need it in the twenty first century


according to the surveys uh done by straits time in twenty fifteen around half of singaporeans admitted that it's, annoying for people to be constantly on their phone during mealtimes but what's ironic is that eighty three percent of the people admitted that they do so at the dining table


does technology uh especially smartphone technology has taken away many precious opportunities for human human interactions and bonding and leading to decreased uh in, the practice of interpersonal skills and we know that uh soft skills is something that will regress over time if we don't use it


enough but uh, so with the invention of technology there has been decreasing amount of in generating, directions and hence linked to decrease in regression in interpersonal skills


seeking knowledge for granted and this heavily reliance on software search engine has just


made us stop practising our critical thinking skills and worse still with the with such readily available information people might misuse each giving rise to a new type of unacceptable behaviour


known as plagiarism whereby people copy other people's work online, without the invention of technology such, problems or behavior wouldn't have arise hence technology does have a negative impact on the skill levels of people


uh for that there's


much more thing that comprises of our interpersonal skills like for example body language it will be something that you wouldn't see or lie when you send a text or even through our recording session right now you can't see the person


body language when they're communicating, and communication is much more than just sending a text for example uh millennials are more prone to use text abbreviations and improper english and that is something that


you wouldn't use if you were to communicate face to face so communication comprises of much more things, or even your dressing and your confidence level which is something that might not necessarily reflect when you communicate through technology


okay so you mentioned that uh you can learn


interpersonal skills, and, confidence and public speaking skills online but to do that in real life face to face I think that's very different and you, still need to, practice it sure you can pick up skills online but in order to fully master the skills you need to be able to apply in real life and with that I don't think technology can help


ya and that, ya sorry you go ahead first


oh ya sorry you go ahead first


uh I don't see how it has enhanced the skills of people but its more of technology they use technology as a tool to help them to, gain more knowledge and that does not necessarily equate to uh enhancing their skill levels ya and


uh


but if we were to remove the technology I doubt that they will be able to, uh to achieve the desired the desired uh effect, on the skill


on the person soft skill levels, and this led to over reliance on technology which I mentioned before like we just take technology for granted and it's what it's just detrimental on our own personal skills


you also mentioned just just now that, uh it help us to, there are also many other soft skills that, I don't think you can teach online such as patience and active listening and this like for example for children like young children they can't


they can't possibly learn it online right through technology but you have to teach it face to face you need the uh human actual human interaction in the classroom setting in order to teach them these values and skills, ya


so you still can't rely on technology for everything


ya then uh how about the known fact that we are so overly reliant on technology that it, it hatches uh lesser our skill levels like for example we have been in our education system we have been so accustomed to using calculator that we can no longer do basic arithmetic such as like


uh maybe thirty times sixty I am pretty sure without the invention of calculator people will have much more better mental, method solving skills compared to now


but if we were able to do all these quadratic equations without the use of calculator wouldn't that be of higher skill levels compared to if you’re to rely so heavily on calculator


ah, and how about when you want to uh, you have a question and ya sorry you have said about point


ya otherwise


I think that can be done easily through, uh books as well ya you don't necessary have to rely on just Google ya and books are like the


original sources of knowledge ya and furthermore they actually just, uh books provide like the, they are categorised nicely for you compared to internet where is more scattered and you have to actually hunt for the specific piece of information ya


yup, ya


okay debate topic three


I agree that every country should have the right to carry out unlimited scientific research only when there are no limits we then can bring scientific research to its full potential regulations prevent developments from reaching their


uh full potential when when as research is a trial and error type of process and it requires a lot of resources and time and with penny


our restrictions uh it might the scientists, might not be as motivated to research to their full potential for example rosalind franklin took fifty one different photos of X-ray deflection in order to figure out the fix structure of DNA giving rise to our modern biology and central dogma imagine if she has to


uh report back to the government and seek for approval in every single trial of her experiment I doubt she will continue or she, or she might even managed to complete her


studies in her lifetime ya and, so science shouldn’t be overly regulated or control and scientific research of uh countries should not be limited to a legal budget and product development should not require so much approval process for example a very


uh real problem is our coronavirus pandemic, it's actually, takes like five to six years in order for, a vaccine to be approved and the five to six years is actually clinical trials and according to a source in john hopkins there has been a exponential trend for the death to the coronavirus and we don't know when that death toll curve will actually hit a plateau


during the five to six years we could have saved so much life and, money, and those money can actually be, channelled into different resources and tackling other issues such as climate change


but yet they uh there's so much limitation and different procedures proper procedures in order to develop a vaccine and this just waste precious


time and, money as long as resources, ya, so in conclusion uh every country should have the right to carry out unlimited scientific research


ah, I wasn't aware that korea actually has a speed up one to two years process but uh I'm talking about vaccines and medicine in general even like drugs and all they also require five to six years to take through


ya for for example one, thing that might not have accelerated clinical trials might be cancer therapy and we don't know that the death toll for cancer therapy yearly is way more than coronavirus, ya but still because of all this uh clinical trials which require a large amount of funding will just this way we just


this, uh, will not encourage people to actually go for it and research ya and, and, during all this long amount of period where we could have saved so many lives they just die ah


have you done with your point, uh yes in order to rebuttal that I believe that you are talking about the issue of ethical research right


the subject on ethics are really subjective for example one of the more common topics that people will like to argue about is abortion some people view it as ethical some people view it as unethical


and sometimes it really depends on the situation likewise for science some experiment might be viewed as unethical by civilians but it might be viewed as ethical for scientists


actually uh controversial example will be the discovery of vaccine, uh so this physicians this england physicians in the eighteen hundreds he famously purposely expose a little boy to cow pox virus and that was how smallpox vaccine was discovered and


through this discovery we have it gave us to so much vaccine and he just became like uh he just founded a modern immunology, ya so I doubt that purposely exposing a boy to a foreign virus is ethical but yet it led to a revolutionary discovery


and, ya that's my rebuttal


uh you might have heard of the word survival of the fittest and we all know that humans are the more advanced species of animals, so uh in order to ensure the continuity of our survival I see there's no wrong to do this kind of experiments in order to prolong our lifespan


ah, unlimited scientific research is actually a very, fake and broad term can also refer to uh the budget for scientific research


ya uh many many, uh experiments has many research has to actually be stopped because of limited funding and it’s like a waste to stop just because of limited budget but we can actually


set aside so much budget for other things such as uh salary ya and


uh also another example would be the discovery of crisper or gene editing uh we all know that there's this sheep called dolly the first cloned sheep


ever in the world but however we can't do much uh animal or human cloning because it's not unethical and stuff and there's a very famous example in, china about this twins lulu and nana they are the first twins to undergo crisper or gene editing so basically the mum is


actually a patient of HIV and the children are supposed to be, born with it and because of gene editing or crisper the twins actually uh gain immunity to HIV and


did not suffer prenatal death, so uh this spark a lot of uh ethical concerns but, I think if we can use


crisper to our to benefit our mankind I don't see why not it should be banned or stop


so uh to counter your point that only rich people will benefit is that if you have a bigger budget for scientific research ultimately the


the end product which is like designer babies can actually be cheaper compared to the exorbitant amount, or exorbitant price that you have to pay compared to a limited scientific research budget ya


and uh, priority has always existed in our society and ever since uh old civilisation and it will always be there where the rich people will benefit so it's nothing new


but the selling of the end by product which is designer babies is not really considered under scientific research anymore but under the uh under the business side so it has nothing to do with uh like the scientific research part ya and they're


stopping most research on designer babies because uh of, unethical reason but I think where they should regulate more is the business part but not the scientific research part ya


, part one debate topic one


right so I believe that modern technology always improve the quality of people's lives for a large number of reasons and I will just name a few so I will start off by defining modern technology and quality of life, so basically technology uh it refers to tools and machines that may be used to solve real world problems and modern technology is the advancement of old technology through science and other developments


the most prominent example of this would probably be electronic devices such as smartphones laptops or any other robotic advancements like artificial intelligence, uh however I think that modern technology also includes advancements such as in the medical field and scientific developments in the world and quality of life according to the internet is defined as the standard of health comfort and happiness experienced by an individual or group


so firstly, uh I'll start off with talking about electronic technology, so, firstly easier communication, texts and calls on both smartphones and computers are very easy and instantaneous regardless of location


so as compared to the past it was very hard to text on older phones because typing took a very long time on those kinds of phones and you know landlines they will usually wire and that's why you need to stay at one spot, versus now, where you can walk anywhere while talking on your phone


and for example when these pagers in the fifties and sixties depending on the type of pager the difficulty and inconvenience level rises so there's like one way two way or even tone only pagers, or even before such electronic methods were created people sent letters which took days to receive uh versus now where text take seconds to be received and replied to so this way the conversation can keep going and communication is more effective which uh improved our daily lifestyle


so my second point would be convenience of life for example in online shopping and delivery applications, you can shop for essentials or any anything you want from like clothes to food and stationery or even tickets and furniture and the list just goes on


so, with this there's no need for you to waste time travelling to brick and mortar stores especially in this current pandemic the COVID nineteen situation this online services allow us to minimise human contact and stay safer and additionally some things are also cheaper online


so my third point would be how technology improved education so, with technology it is easier to do research and this also applies to working professionals, so for example , I wanted to do a project related to law which require a lot of research so


statutes and acts in singapore uh I can use the singapore statutes online and it was very easy to find anything I wanted and can search within each act for like a specific section I want as well so the internet allows me and everybody else to access many things such as research papers and documents the articles online


very easily and quickly, as compared to books which you will kind of waste more time and energy look through and another example of this would be the E dictionary for, my friend my friends in secondary school or JC in mother tongue exams the E dictionary is very useful it's faster and a lot easier than having to flip through a hard copy dictionary


so to conclude all these things I've mentioned make our day to day lives a whole lot easier by increasing our productivity and they can be accessed right at our fingertips and thus I believe that technology improve the quality of people's lives


alright okay firstly the opposition has, brought up that convenience leads to a sense of indolence so I would like to report that uh by saying that you know it's really up to human, like us as humans to counter that, and we have to just accept that like technology brings in this convenience and we should just appreciate it lah


and she also brought up about the diminishing jobs but I would like to say that , while technology has replaced some jobs for humans uh this has also led to the emergence of more jobs being opened up to us, so and she also brought up about


companies who rely on machines, , retrenching their employees so , if reliance on machines increases efficiency then personality uh personally I think there is no problem ah, and, as I said earlier there are more jobs opened because of technology as well well so


I just believe that uh pros outweigh the cons, so I'll just move on to my next argument uh which is how modern medical technology has improved the quality of people's lives, so firstly for physical health I think there is, no doubt that advancements in modern technology have improved the quality of life of


people by improving our health care so, for example the mortality rate in infants, , we take the example of the cesarean the C section so when it was first introduced in three hundred twenty BC very long ago the mortality rate was still very high and it remain that way until the eighteenth nineteenth century where anaesthesia was introduced and survival of both the mother and baby then became common


uh additionally now that more people are opting to use this modern technology the mortality rates have also gone down, an example would be in brazil so in two thousand and one its infant mortality rate was thirty three point six percent whereas in two thousand eleven it fell to fifteen point six percent and this was due to more women opting for cesarean procedure which uh rising from thirty eight percent in two thousand and one


to fifty point one percent in two thousand and nine, and, over the last forty or so years many life saving technological intervention and improvements in medical care technology have been made which has improved the infant mortality rate so for example


a twenty eleven study carried out by scientists found that the administration of a kind of gel uh reduce the rate of preterm birth before the thirty third week of pregnancy by forty five, percent among women so additional uh additionally , modern technology also gives us more cures for illnesses and diseases


and everyday new procedures and drugs are being tested, and implemented to help prevent diagnose and cure diseases as well as lessen or treat symptoms and help improve the quality of life for patients, so, for example three D printing this kind of technology it can be used to create implants and drugs or surgery and three D printed prosthetics can match a patient's measurements down to the extremely accurate very accurately and it allows for comfort and mobility


and, and medical technology advances is becoming more and more personalised to individual patients, like precision medication which allows physicians to select medicines and therapies and treat diseases with cancer based on an individual's genetic makeup which is a lot more effective than regular medication


and I'll I would like talk about organ transplants like, many modern developments in technology have also enabled new milestones for organ transplants every day so for example in twenty eighteen the skin gun was invented which takes a small amount of healthy skin to be grown in a lab


which is then sprayed onto burnt skin and this way the skin will heal in days instead of months and will not scar, so earlier I also talk about three D printing and bio printing which is a new kind of technology enables scientists to create artificial organs such as blood vessels synthetic ovaries and even the pancreas


and lastly I would like to add on to my first argument about electronic technology, and digital services allow patients to received medical care to the devices instead of waiting for face to face appointments like, this is tele health so for example mobile apps are being developed which allow patients to speak virtually with physicians and other medical professionals to receive an instant diagnosis and medical advice


and it also gives patients different access points to health care where and when they need it for example patients uh managing chronic conditions receive consistent convenient and very cost effective medical care, so to conclude modern modern medical technology definitely improves people's quality of life by giving them more efficient and successful treatments to their illnesses


as well as but providing them with, greater convenience and comfort in their daily lives


yeah I mean I definitely believe that modern technology does have it's pros and cons , with regards to the ethical and moral beliefs that you mentioned I do think personally , that the overall benefits


, of modern technology , outweigh the disadvantages and, I find the, these uh ethical and moral beliefs and concerns to be a bit trivial you know such as they they are concerned about it being too invasive or something like that


I believe that in order for us to move forward and, to improve the lives of everybody modern technology technology itself is inevitable and, it has develop to help us enjoy life as much as possible but however I I do concede that the statement of


always like the word always improving life maybe a bit of a stretch in our current society like in this modern time but, I I do believe that , with time and further developments


modern technology will no doubt become a force that that, that would change all our lives for the better yeah


yeah yeah cutting off, so you are like cutting off again can you like type it inside maybe


yeah your yeah can, but you keep you keep freezing, uh you are still freezing


yes, you sure your screen is still freezing a bit, is still is still the same


okay okay, uh) you gonna restart resume the timer


alright so I mean as I said , modern technology does have its pros and cons, but I like I said I believe the overall benefits really outweigh the disadvantages I'll just state some more like examples you know for example uh AIs


is , an emerging technology right now lah and, the AIs have many many functions that really make our life a lot easier, as well as, not only make our lives easier through convenience and stuff like that but, also through you know


, medical in the medical field the criminal field something like that you know so for example AI can, empower people with disability so, for example more than one billion people disabilities around the world , AI can help them here by using computers


and, it has very impressive accuracy so for example there's an app called seeing AI which empowers individuals with like, visual impairment by describing people objects and text around them


, part two debate topic two


right the opposition has made some good arguments however I would like to rebut them now so, the opposition mentioned that science is merely an addition to effective farming and not a necessity, and that effective farming requires sufficient crops to be harvested which can be achieved without scientific inventions however I disagree for a number of reasons which I will now be presenting in my argument


so I will start off, by talking about SRI which stands for system of rice intensification, so SRI is system which is founded on science which includes using less seed water and fertiliser, to grow more rice with less inputs and therefore cost


so this system was set into motion by henri de laulanié, who had a degree in agriculture and over the years farmers who adopted SRI saw yields rise and cost diminished and today about four to five million farmers in fifty one countries in the over the world use it in whole or in part


and they are seeing yield increases up to two hundred percent, so for example india recently broke records for the world's highest rice yield by using SRI techniques and by using the same techniques they grew record amounts of wheat and potatoes, and farmers in Goa last year found that they spend seventy percent less on seed with SRI to grow up twice as much rice


and since less water is used to grow rice with SRI studies also now show that the land and the rice grown to SRI has less incidents of arsenic contamination and paddies released less methane uh which are two huge issues in rice cultivation worldwide


and I think that farming as achieved through the science of SRI essentially which is greater yield with less resources depleted, as well as a reduced risk of contamination is both more efficient as well as better for the earth and nature uh than other farming methods that do not make use of


and science and as science advances farming had has become more productive reliable and efficient so for example while organic practice like using manure and rotating crops helped, crops that are supplemented with synthetic fertilisers and helped along with insecticides and herbicides definitely produce greater yield


uh this thing such as you know insecticides and herbicides have been founded through science, and they impact agriculture positively by promoting growth and keeping away pest which can contaminate or destroy the crop, and additionally the use of, farming related machinery such as tractor irrigation systems sorter picker or any other machineries uh tools


will no doubt speed up the farming process and yield a lot more crop than traditional methods of farming so to conclude while farming maybe considered effective without the use of science there is no doubt, that science maximises yield and productivity all while reducing costs which is definitely more effective than traditional method


ya ya


alright the opposition has made some uh very good arguments however I would like to rebut them now, so the opposition mentioned that machines have a the possibility of malfunctioning and and may destroy the crops instead of helping to harvest the crops fast


and that there is also a high cost to maintain and fix these machines when they malfunctions, so uh while I do agree that the use of machines may result in like occasional mishaps, I would also like to point out


that science in farming does not only refer to the use of machinery, so as mentioned in my first argument one example of using science in farming is the SRI practice and this system


which was borne from science made use of, research and evidence over the years to maximise efficiency in farming, and you know additionally even in, the occasional event that, things go awry while using machines I believe that


the overall output uh that machines produce can quite easily cover any any crops uh, damaged by inadvertent mishaps and the profits of greater yield from these machines


can also help to balance out any cost of maintenance so with that I would like to begin my second argument, so without science farming is basically taken back to the primitive hunter gatherer mindset


in which most or all food is obtained by like foraging, from this I would like to point out that essentially farming itself is a science already so I think that such, hunting gathering practice or rather farming without science may be effective for smaller numbers of people like small groups of people


but not for society as a whole, so why is this because firstly the population of the earth is increasing, so this means that there are now more people who require crop crops whether for food or otherwise


harvesting crops traditionally also it use lesser amounts, which is quite detrimental to helping society survive, additionally traditional farming is a very tedious and laborious job, and our population is ageing slowly but surely


and you know it's usually the older generation who work in farms, so it's it will surely be hard for elderly to use traditional farming, methods to work long hours of the day, only to gain lesser crop yield as


compared to using science to produce more crops either uh easier and quicker, and I also like to question you know what really is, science because science it can be defined as the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world


following a systematic methodology based on evidence, so these things that make up science are to me , essential to ensure effective farming, now and in the future, so farming right now is not perfect


with or without science, and only by using science can we properly understand the, underlying and present problems we face in the farming industry, and only by using science can we tackle these problems and come up with effective solutions to solve these problems


and only by using science, can we revolutionise farming as a whole and bring ourselves forward, as a society to uh improve and develop how we work, and also agricultural science you know involved sciences regarding soil


water crops pests climate funds, labour quality and cost management many more and while regular farmers may have a general knowledge of such topics


farmers who apply the understanding and expertise of science will no doubt yield a greater crop more efficiently science is tried and tested and it cannot go wrong ah, so thus I stand by my argument


that farming with science is inadvertently more effective than without science, so, my conclusion is that farming while it is possible without science effective farming is not


(hmm) okay, so like like you mentioned science, it's an addition to increase the effectiveness and, not make it effective from ineffective however


I feel that in our current society right where, everything is so fast paced and, everybody has so many needs and wants the traditional methods of farming will now be considered ineffective


and basically while , such methods may have been considered effective in the past in today's society it might not be ah, so therefore only with the addition of science can farming become effective today


so though people like as you mentioned in the early years have has succeeded many times without science, society has since , has since developed since then and has changed by leaps and and bounds and you know indeed


there are circumstances that that no one can change with or without science as like you mentioned the weather or climate, but irregardless of this factors science will enable farming to be more productive with or without science


like no with or without science the weather is still unpredictable the climate will still change so, adapting to such uh circumstances and using science to, maximise productivity in farming is more effective


part three debate topic three


right so for this third topic I the proposition, believe the artificial intelligence should be embraced since it is inevitable, so there are number of reasons why I think so and I will just list a few out in my argument


so firstly I will define artificial intelligence, so artificial intelligence or AI is the ability of a computer or a robot controlled by a computer to do task that, require intelligence and discernment that are usually done by humans


so my first argument is basically that AI uh is inevitable because AI is already here, and a number of our day to day activities require the use of AI to make them more efficient and convenient, and that's why we should embrace AI


so just take for example Google search every time, we need to find the answer to something or we need to we need to find something anything we just look it up on the search engine and it's so simple right, the Google search engine is actually an AI, and Google has incorporated


deep learning into the search engine, and additionally the engine uses AI to generate and improve the ranking algorithms of the search results, and without AI some things so menial will become, exponentially harder


as we waste both time and energy to sift through results that are both relevant and irrelevant, so aside from Google search many other applications we use on a daily basis also make use of AI, so for example Google maps or a GPS services make use of artificial intelligence and machine learning to improve their location searching capabilities


so by using location recommendation and, instant traffic alerts AI they enable these apps to not only get asked to where we need to go but helps us to do so more quickly, accurately efficiently and conveniently


so therefore our our comfort and productivity is being maximised because of AI so this brings me to my next point, when applications on your phones such as Netflix YouTube, Shopee Amazon or anything similar gives you recommendations they are also making use of AIs


when you use digital assistance such as, Google Google assistant, alexa, siri you are talking to AI who do routine jobs for you digitally and save your time and energy, or when your food delivery app< recommend delicious restaurants and predict wait time so you can choose between the one that suits your taste the most you are also relying on AI


when your E mail so turns out, stamp mail and just displays the important emails in your inbox you are relying on AI, when you use social media and take photos with filters you are also relying on a type of AI known as lenses my point is that basically AI not only gives you what you need to know


but goes above and beyond by streamlining the process, and increases our overall comfort and happiness in life, so to conclude AI is already here and it is inevitable, and whether knowingly or unknowingly we all make use of AI every single day and they have made our lives a lot easier


artificial intelligence gives us so many advantages to those who use it and it's pretty much a no brainer you know since we already use and depend on them daily there is no reason why we shouldn't embrace it now


, right, so the opposition has made some good arguments however I would like to rebut them now


so firstly the opposition mentioned that AI cause unemployment and I do agree that, with the advent of such technology certain jobs are, bound to be replaced by robots who can perform such tasks more effectively than humans do


uh however rather than humans being ousted due to AI I think that the, development of such technology, will simply change what people do, so the opposition also mentioned, that specialised skills are required for jobs that emerged due to AI and while I agree with this


I think that ultimately greater efficiency and productivity in how we go about our life is worth it, and acquiring the required skills is only a small price to pay for the increased level of productivity, so that are now move on to my second argument which is why we should embrace AI as their use and development is inevitable in society


and how they can help us in many situations, so firstly, AI may and have been used in crime prevention and detection, so for example in the US, AI can be used to detect gunfire and locate the area where the incidents occurring the AI can also detect the position of the shooter or shooters and then alert the police


so it was found that only twelve percent of incidents which involved gunfire were reported to the police and with AI the police can locate the incidents and alleviate the situation quickly, uh without anybody reporting it, so next


AIs may used to be defect uh vital or important clues in crime scene, AI enabled systems can help detect clues from police photographs for example a toy a weapon from the crime scene which is captured in the photograph, and this image can be searched in the police database to find


if the same toy or weapon is used in any previous murders or crime, this will give you know the authority something to look into, and the process of apprehending the criminal can be sped up, the AI can and potentially identify natural glycerin aluminium powder tetronitrate


passive infrared sensors and other components that are used to create bombs and similar things if AIs can do this they can detect bombs without putting the lives of security personnel or anyone who checks this kind of things at risk, so with this I would also like to pose a question to the opposition whose stated that AI would displace jobs through this example can you really say that all jobs being displaced due to AI is a bad thing to society because you know job such as these are being taken over by robots build potentially save many lives


so next AI system can also detect and predict possible locations where crime may take place, and for example crime types tend to cluster with space and time and the data related to crime like crime type location and weapons used can help to predict future crime spots


and AI can help the police to know which areas they should or could consider tightening security for, moving on besides preventing crime, AI may soon play a significant role in improving and developing the world health care


uh firstly AI can significantly reduce the operational costs of health care, and one example of this is in the field of joint replacement therapy, so an intelligent programme known as peerwell helps patients to prepare for total joint replacement by guiding them through the course of pre operational physical therapy


and it was also reported in the study that patient using the AI saw a reduction in surgery costs of, one thousand two hundred and fifteen dollars, so additionally the test group also saw a reduction of twenty five percent in the patient sent in hospital


and there was an eighty percent reduction for the post-op home care and ninety one percent in number of patients discharged to nursing home care after their operations next as they say prevention is better than cure so multiple AI such as freenome are able to detect disease and disease and ailments early so that doctors may treat them as fast fast as possible


so for example freenome uses AI and screenings diagnostic tests and blood work to test for cancer and another company uh atomwise uses AI to tackle some of today's most serious diseases like ebola and sclerosis by predicting bio activity and identifying patient characteristics for clinical trial


so this technology screens between ten and twenty million genetic compound each day and can deliver results hundred times faster than traditional pharmaceutical companies, so AI can also help to streamline health care for example qventus is an AI based software platform that solve operational challenges


including those related to emergency rooms and patient safety and the company's automated platform prioritise patients illnesses and injuries tracks hospital waiting times they can even chart the fastest ambulance routes, so these are just some of the many many ways AI can impact our society positively by helping to save lives and create a better society and as I mentioned about earlier argument AI are already present and inevitable and with this evidence that we as a society can progress even further through the use of AI


embracing it will surely bring us many benefits okay thus I end my argument here thank you


right so again I feel that the overall, oh my god the overall benefits outweigh the disadvantages and the benefits, uh in my opinion are not surface level or superficial like you said because they are so deeply rooted and ingrained into our daily routines that


doing them uh doing without this AI would be horrible, but I do agree that we should have a certain independence in our lives so as not to be completely reliant on AI, and my point also stands that AI have and will continue to improve life in our society but just as


it is modern technology it has its pros and con so overall I think AI should be embraced as, with further development and support our lives can be revolutionised, and you know I also have many more examples on how AI benefit our lives


like they can do it's like I mentioned earlier they can do the busy work for you those very time consuming and monotonous tasks and, AI can do that for you which frees up extra time for you to do, things with creativity ingenuity you know things that you have to solve and although like some jobs would have and will change because of the new technology like AI


this will create new jobs and it also enhance a lot of the work we currently do, and it can help to make job safer safer like I mentioned earlier the bomb thing, and it can help make jobs easier and more productive yeah


, part one debate topic one


my stand is that modern technology do not like, improve always improve the quality of life uh I'll start off by rebutting the proposition, so the proposition has stated how electronic technology has provided many advantages such as convenience easier communication and education I will rebut this by saying that


those positive impacts are temporary despite modern technology being able to provide all the above benefits, it brings about negative impacts in the long run in cashless example of online shopping it has no doubt that created easier access to purchasing items without having to travel all the way to a brick and mortar store


however while it may be, convenient for people, this will start to cultivate a sense of indolence in people people will constantly start, to crave for more convenient, and accessible ways of lifestyle lifestyle


and this will eventually lead a societies lack of initiatives and also enthusiasm this, definitely does not improve the quality of life making it lifeless and rely on technology so the advantages, the advantages of modern technology are short lived and will pose a challenge to the society in the long run


I will not expand this point that the negatives will soon start to outweigh the positive impacts, of modern technology and this shows that you can never improve the quality of life all the time one example I would like to propose will be the diminishing employment rate it is clear to see that modern technology can also lead to artificial intelligence


or robots and machines that can help these companies of both effort and time, as stated before people are constantly looking for a better way of living resulting in a reliance on technology and companies may start relying on machines instead of real life employee


this eventually leads to retrenchment as people are no longer regarded as something essential to companies, the employment rate will definitely increase in the long run and people being out of jobs is not a stable quality of life at all for instance in singapore there


has been a hype of genki sushi because of their interesting way of using technology to serve food instead of using waiters, this makes employees that work as waiters undermined and overlooked and their they do not provide the same amount of entertainment or incentive this is one example of how


modern technology is able to replace human jobs and made people jobless due to this interesting prospects, to conclude this is one reason why modern technology cannot always improve the quality of life as that, little aspects which shows that in the long run the positive impacts will soon turn to negative


okay so the proposition has stated how technology has helped immense you know( uh) benefit, while her points maybe valid it is equally important to take in account the ethical impacts of modern technology as they contribute a different perspective and present its not so positive impact


of society today, there are indeed many ways to define the quality of life mentioned by, the proposition earlier, this includes the economical aspect intellectual aspect and cultural aspect


which the proposition, has left out, I still strongly believe in modern technology being impossible in always improving the quality of life as it has its limitations when considering the ethical and more impacts it has


on society, in today's modern society strong beliefs exist among many different religious groups or races within the community and they helped to pave the society as an assimilated culture place


indeed modern technology has helped science grow in many ways as the proposition has mentioned such as medicine, however methods still skim research behind all the technology we have today has become a concerning issue for many groups of people with sharp beliefs that are shaken by these researchers


one example I would like to suggest would be stem cells as it is an example of how modern technology research has been very integrated and popular among biology scientists nowadays, it allows a deeper understanding into biology such as the study of cell division therapeutic cloning with regeneration of cells and drug development and testing


this has created many ethical problems one would be that people finding it too invasive as it has the potential to create new life, other ethical challenges would be the exploitation of donors and that only the rich are able to have access to this in addition this research can also lead to unnatural of


such ethical problems cannot be easily resolved as it complicates with the mindset and views of, others thus, the quality of life can be improved in terms of certain areas such as medicine and communication as the proposition has mentioned but it can never improve all aspects of life making this statement questionable as they states that it will always improve the quality of life


which is used like an absolute term to suggest how modern technology will never has negative impacts on the quality of life which I have proven that it is false, uh on that account it can be argued that


while modern technology brings about benefits, it is short lived and over time the negative effects will outweigh the positive thus, modern technology can never always improve quality of life


at the end of the day modern technology is a double edged sword in the way that it's positive impacts has its negative effect, as well, this has been shown in my points that while modern technology opens up for more opportunities in life and also provides so many benefits it ultimately undermined the society's moral and ethical beliefs


this will impact the quality of life, as people with beliefs affected will not find that modern technology improve their quality of life but instead made it unstable, even though this


impacts uh quite uh, trivial I believe that it will still, disagree with the statement as the statement does state that modern technology will always improve the quality of life which is not true as it depends on the type of people you're affecting and how it will impact these groups of people in the long run thus


I disagree the statement


sorry sorry can repeat ya I cannot really hear


sorry sorry ya ya cutting off we can't hear you uh I think it's still cutting off a bit okay


okay


part two debate topic two


okay I the proposition believe that effective farming is possible without science and do not need to rely completely on science to start off I would like to define effective farming


as the ability to grow and harvest sufficient crops successfully without giving too much effort or time, I strongly believe that while science seems to contribute inconvenient and efficient ways for effective farming there are other aspects that are required for effective farming which science is not able to deal or provide


firstly effective farming is possible without science as crops do not require intensive scientific knowledge instead it's just an education of the methods used and not necessarily needed for effectiveness


agricultural activities go way back in history before industrialisation where science started to take off agriculture is fairly simple with plants only needing suitable weather conditions, plants are still able to grow naturally without science and farmers would be able to harvest them for consumption and living for instance myanmar was a largest exporter of rice in the nineteen thirties even today myanmar


still has a relatively uneducated population due to political instability yet most of them are able to carry out agriculture, this shows that it does not require rocket science knowledge to carry out effective farming farming based solely on experience and advice from matters which is sufficient and in depth knowledge about plant anatomy for example is not needed for effective farming in addition


one of the most essential conditions for best crops growth like I mentioned before would be the weather, this is a natural phenomenon, that cannot be controlled by science at all instead it can only be predicted but not change according to the farmers liking so when the weather is unfavourable for farming science cannot prevent or change the weather


the favourable one for crops growth for instance one clear example would be the solving of climate change by science, till today even though many science solutions have been invented such as catalytic converters to reduce air pollution they are relatively ineffective as a whole


as they do not entirely solved the whole issue, thus this can suggest the futile attempt of science to solve environmental issues and can definitely not help with farming weather conditions that is ultimately, a natural phenomenon that science cannot affect this brings me to my point that weather conditions require farming cannot be dealt with by science making science an addition but not a necessity thus


to reiterate my point science is merely an addition to effective farming and not a necessity, effective farming requires sufficient crop crops to be harvested which can be achieved without scientific inventions


uh okay sorry can I start now, okay sorry the opposition has stated that science has allowed for, invention of many machines they're able to make farming more effective


I'll like to rebut this by saying that while these machines can help to maximise yield it has limitations and a downside of potentially malfunctioning which in turns destroy crops I will like to propose that idea that


science do not always provide an effective farming as it as it has its limitations as well effective farming requires the use of machines to provide, an easier way to harvest crops, however despite this benefit one limitation would be that these machines have a possibility of malfunctioning and in turn the crops may not be able to be harvested instead


a second limitation would be the high cost and maintenance to fix these machines when they malfunctioned as they may instead make life harder for the farmers as they have, to go up all the way contact the maintenance workers and try to get these machines


fixed before they can use it again, one example would be the tractors used by farmers these tractors require sensors built inside, for harvesting crops, when these sensors break down the tractor will immediately shut down and crops still in the middle of being harvested are crushed and destroyed


and they cannot be used by farmers at all, furthermore the maintenance of tractors is very costly and requires a long period of time having to send it over to maintenance, and it all the way back which is not very convenient


as this may be even worse for farms that are in remote areas and uh even further away from these maintenance factories, on that account I would like to suggest that despite science being beneficial to farming it does not promise an eternal benefit as it has its limitations that may cause farmers greatly


thus this will result in a less effective farming when science does not benefit the way it should and instead made it to adverse effects due to its constraints so effective farming is possible without science as science is not the most outstanding way to rely on for effective farming


okay so my point uh is that effective farming should be possible without science, because as I reiterate that science is not a necessity but in addition that it's able to help increase the effectiveness of farming


but not make it effective or ineffective this is because, farming can already be efficient without science as I have proven in my first point that people in early years have already succeeded, and farming has come a long way without many issues


even with the, issues that farming faced is not likely to be all solved by science and science has have also proven in my second point, that it has its limitations in fact


we should not put all our eggs into one basket and just rely on science to solve all the issues and improve farming as it is not possible, so I feel that even without science effective farming can rely on other aspects


to make it even more effective as well, due to the complexity of the world today, there are many aspects that contribute to whether farming is effective or not and science is just a minuscule component of the whole topic which is why i feel that effective farming is definitely possible without science


I feel that for science you can also like maximise your best, the proposition have said like in terms of genetically modified food but then I think it will also pose a limitation as to the chemicals that are induced in this food


that are that will be soon uh be spread to other people for consumption and, this may not be uh very healthy uh source of food because chemicals can


integrate to advanced effects as well, which will prove that actually science will have its limitations when solving farming in terms of genetically modified food


part three debate topic three


while the proposition has mentioned that artificial intelligence is already integrated into our daily daily life, I still stand my ground that artificial intelligence, should not be accepted into society due to its negative impacts which I will be expanding on later


but to rebut on the proposition's point, I feel that despite the integration of artificial intelligence in almost everything we do this does not apply to everyone due to their unforeseen situations


for example the use of Google requires the presence of an internet connection or even mobile data this will not be possible in some group of people who are not able to afford such items which brings me to the point that while artificial intelligence


is integrated in many things we do today it does not apply to everyone, which shows its limitation in reaching out to people and that is rather discriminating to, some groups of people uh these people who are not able to enjoy the benefits of artificial intelligence


will have to look for other ways to fulfil fulfil the gap tasks, and if the society focuses too much on artificial intelligence this will create a social disparity between those who have access to it and those who doesn't know


furthermore the negative impacts are about to talk about should give us a reason to shift our focus on artificial intelligence as it will eventually affect the society negatively, despite it being an unavoidable costs due to the constant reliance on technology and desire for more I believe that artificial intelligence should not be embraced as it has its negative side that can lead to undesirable consequence


to start off artificial intelligence should not be embraced as it causes unemployment, it is a simulation of human thinking and it mimics our actions when successfully programmed they are likely to replace low skill jobs that do not require


critical thinking which only humans are able to do on the spot as firms are unlikely to make maximise their profit, they will make the switch to the machinery as it is cheaper to buy a robot which requires maintenance on rare occasions rather than pay monthly wages to a worker in the long run


this would cause higher levels of unemployment of low skilled workers which would increase income disparity in a society for example locally the introduction self payment counters at NTUC supermarkets has reduce the needs for cashiers


in the past one counter needs to have one cashier but for today in today's society only one staff is required to manage the six self pay payment kiosk, in a research supported by the world economic forum automation will replace at least seventy five million jobs but


but generate hundred and thirty three million new ones worldwide by twenty twenty while I agree that artificial intelligence will generate more jobs, these new jobs however requires specialised skills that would that would require time time to learn


low skilled jobs are usually held by the lower income earners or the elderly in the case of singapore which would be extremely difficult for this group of people thus, the artificial intelligence is not able to curb the issue of unemployment rate in the long run and will not be advisable in our society


the proposition has mentioned that artificial intelligence is able to help out in many real life situations such as crimes and medicine this is legitimate however I rebut by saying that ethical concerns come into place when talking about medicine which includes animal cruelty


the death of research patients is also a reason for the exploitation of research in artificial intelligence, to start off I will say that artificial intelligence should not be embraced as it's likely to give rise to more ethical problems that are complex and not easy to resolve


the embracing of artificial intelligence would mean that more task will be relegated to machines to carry out, this can pose a danger because machines are unable to accurately simulate human feelings and thinking and their judgement such as empathy and the negative consequences of an action


when the machine malfunctions and causes irreparable damage the question that come into play would be who would who should be blamed as we cannot possibly fault a machine, this creates a flawed system and would create loopholes in the justice


for instance I'll be sharing about the auto pilot Tesla car, for the car malfunctions and knock downs a a person many concerns come in to say that who should we blame for the death should we blame the driver of the car


he was not in control of the car and did not intentionally caused the accident accident yet we can also not fault the car in the process many lives might be lost without justice, this is why I feel that artificial intelligence should not be embraced because they have this ethical and moral concerns which is inevitable due to its complex and not solvable impact


, we have to take in account the underlying issues faced by artificial intelligence by other groups of people and also in the long run I have proven that artificial intelligence has its negative impacts, and thus we should not rely completely on artificial intelligence and not instantly embrace it and instead use it throughout our society


part one debate topic one


okay understand


okay I'll start


okay so hello everyone today for the debate topic we'll be talking about for the majority of people the arts are a waste of time and how true is this in your society, and uh I would like to say that I the proposition agree uh the first point being that art is seen as a non essential industry


uh in a article posted by straits times and a survey done by them on about one thousand respondents about seventy one percent of singaporeans in during that survey voted that arts is non essential


uh to define essential is being that the jobs that are the most crucial in keeping singapore going , uh the survey ya included a definition of an essential worker as someone who is engaged in work deemed necessary to meet the basic needs of human survival


and well being such as food health safety and cleaning yup, and the not to my surprise the top five picks for the essential jobs were, being a doctor being a nurse being a cleaner garbage collector or hawker or even just a delivery man so it is as much as the arts is extremely subjective


and has a far wide reach in its benefits because we can see how arts has influence us in today is everywhere is in theater there is in dance there is in movies, you have different jobs and everything it is


not an essential job it is it is a stigma that we're so simply taught that when we were young by our parents that when we grow up we should strive to be doctors dentists businessman or accountants


and arts in our society seem to only play a part in convenience and comfort but it is still not essential, my second point to back this up is that there is a declining interest in arts in singapore


in an article on straits times the government has also made efforts to improve singaporeans participation in arts events but there have been mixed results


as much as the budget for (ppc), for singapore culture (ppc) sorry, yup uh as much as the budget has increased in the past ten years and the increase in interest has


has has grown it is still a declining among like throughout the years, the two thousand and seventeen singapore cultural statistics report showed that a number of tickets sold for performing arts events dipped from one point five million to one point three million


the next year and at the same time the national arts council recorded an overall drop in singaporeans engagement in the arts within the same period , so in his latest population survey on the arts released in two thousand and seventeen the national arts council actually dropped in attendance for about twenty four percent yup from two thousand and fifteen to two thousand and seventeen so in this two years


it is it shows that there is a drop in interest and a declining interest in art itself, , uh furthermore in an article posted on two thousand and sixteen it was recorded that within two years of the article there have been a closing of a commercial museum


several art galleries and fairs that closed during that period of time due to poor attendance and financial challenges one being the gillman barracks art gallery cluster they saw the departure of two tenants earlier this year ya


and nearly a third of the seventeen galleries chose not to renew their leases, art fairs such as the singapore art fair and Milan image art and design fair singapore have also uh not come up since two thousand and fourteen


so these articles highlight that it could pick up in the years to come but the art scene in singapore is still fairly young and it is evident that our society in singapore today has a declining interest in in this industry


so therefore from these two points art is non essential to singapore and it has a declining interest among society so that's where I conclude thank you


gently okay so I, yup okay


(ppc)


okay, okay so from what you've said Jia-Ling (ppc) I've actually read on the report for two thousand and nineteen for singapore budget from the government


and as much as the budget for arts is still there for example for two thousand and nineteen it was about two hundred and twenty five million okay two hundred eh ya, no hundred and twenty five or hundred and fifty million I I forgot where's the ya I I didn't open it here but basically right


most of the, of the budget that was given was only given to sustain, the existing the existing, the arts uh communities that they have now which is about hundred and twenty five million for the year that was the spending budget and uh the amount that they could explore with was about two hundred and twenty five thousand so


the budget to explore has been decreasing for the past three years because of that report covered two thousand and nineteen two thousand and seventeen and two thousand and eighteen so it has been decreasing and I think that we do have to look at the fact that perhaps


it is due to the fact that there is a still declining interest and I'm sure that the government does proper research and surveys and data analysis just to find out how much they need for each organisation


yup, and as much as uh the job can I mean as much as arts is beautiful it is


a purposeful it has an effect where you know listening to Spotify can make your day, it does not define the fact whether you you you're going to die you are going to live whether you live or breathe you know whether you have food to eat on a table it is still non essential that's still the fact it can make you happy it can


be convenient to people it can make things more comfortable for people but it does not define whether they live or die, yes okay thank you that's all


it's the red button right, it's


twenty twenty five


part two debate topic two


okay hello everyone uh today, uh debate topic is art is not meant to instruct or influence it is only meant to be enjoyed and do I agree with this viewpoint, so as the proposition uh I would like to start


with, for like for the sake of this debate I would like to first define the difference between art and design and the therefore how does it come into play with my point, so uh art and design may intersected they both come from the same fundamentals they both have the same


flow of creativity uh flexibility but there is a key distinction between them, uh there and they distinctly they are distinctly different fields okay uh the point about art is the art is meant to provoke thought and emotions it is meant to be enjoyed by uh whatever audience this is because art is a


diverse spectrum okay beat it uh performing arts music, visual arts uh theatrical and uh, then and so forth okay it is meant to convey emotions messages through each performance okay and uh art is performed and made based on a group or an individual perspective being like maybe perhaps the artist


and the artist has oh sorry and the audience has the freedom to perceive this performance based on what the artist has done , they the artist has created something that is diverse for


any group any any any anyone that comes into that room uh watches that thing or watches the performance, is able to think, and decide whether they like it or dislike it they have the fluidity of their decision


they and this is the key difference from design because design is, the other way around design is user centric we use the same uh background the same techniques the same philosophy of art but it is then again user centric methodical and data driven


unlike arts is also created by a group or an individual but it is created with a specific knowledge and research in mind , and a point in mind in order to create something that is purposeful and enjoyable for a targeted audience it is for a specific use a specific purpose a specific uh target market


design has function in mind always and is based on the key target markets specific needs and like before even being launched to society, and it brings me to my one and only point okay if art is instructor a thought it is no longer art


it becomes design, and why I'm defining arts and design is because arts has the ability to be more fluid flexible engaging and enjoyed, okay so when art is instructed or made to influence or it's made to teach others it is essentially becomes design because you are incorporating a more rigid process a more


you're you're taking out the some form or you're limiting the creativity in order to teach a specific group, you are limiting how the audience perceives it, and you're not giving them chance whether they want to dislike it in a way because you are trying to hit what they like in the first place you are not giving any space of freedom to perceive this in a way if you compare it to art which is very very diverse okay


and, yup you you, basically lose the aspect of allowing the audience to perceive what you're doing freely you are instructing and influencing specifically and, maybe technically as an example a dance instructor is basically


a designer of dance choreography, ya that's that's just the basic example you can be a designer you can be an artist but there is a clear difference so, art is not meant to instruct the influence that's for design


and if you do that your in a way just a designer okay thank you


okay uh


okay uh Jia-Ling going back to your points about art being an umbrella for everything that is creative I would like to disagree with that because for design itself they look passed what


you as a person would like you as a person would find aesthetic or , in any way pleasing as a designer, because as working as a group as working as that the essential idea the essential uh design the essential points of that design is going to be based on what your market or whatever this uh


uh whatever the data says basically so you can have a research group you can have surveys and based on that percentage based on the the findings you are going to make that design, it's it's not base just on whatever pleases you because in the end designers work in a company there are


there are different layers uh which they answer to their different uh processes and which they they decide what goes where and how it looks and how it works and I'm not just talking about graphic design and how aesthetically pleasing it is it's also about functionality


in terms of a toilet bowl is a design for for all we we all know a toilet bowl is a design and it does not look pleasing, okay so yes uh you can say that art and design share


some similar characteristics and they do intercept but they are definitely not the same at all and when you uh talk about designers being unhappy about things and no self respecting designer would create something that


would not make them happy or what they would not like is not about them a designer is to in a sense, be, a creative mind but for the people it's not only about their own idea they can help things along with their idea


yup so that is my point there so if you are going to teach something , or take the fun out of it or limit the freedom in which you think uh limit the the expression limit how people perceive it then that is already in a way you are designing your process you are designing the outcome


and you're therefore designing how it perceived and therefore it is no longer art, it's not meant to be instructed influence it's just meant to be enjoyed


ya okay you can go now,


(ppc)


okay so uh taking your points about toilet bowls once again okay this is the last time I'm going to mention toilet bowls because , you were mentioning that there was like fancy toilet bowl and there were like nonsense toilet bowls and everything but it really depends on the target market once again


that's why you have a niche target market and you have a moderate and average target markets and low income target target market and that's why you have user profiling in design so, even to how it looks like basically


the the how you use it or the way that it the general shape and everything can be flexible but it's still for a target market and that's the point I'm trying to get across that the main difference between design and art is that art can has the freedom to be enjoyed


yup sometimes design goes pass just in enjoy the limits everything to a specific person or a specific market, and yeah, so even the design of


your computer chips even the design of makeup acrylics even the design of your nails even the design of fabric how the fabric looks like or if the fabric is waterproof it doesn't define whether is aesthetically pleasing


it's a design of technology itself so


I really disagree with that because designers and artists are very different, and even in a job E mail if you want to talk about job, positions if you send out an E mail and you have a sign of you cannot just say that you are a maybe graphic artist instead of a graphic designer it means very different things when you say that you are graphic artist is almost like you are illustrated you can


you have not only, kind of passed, passed the like the basic levels of like fundamentals of drawing that's just just put this into example okay it's not as if you you just not only passed the basics but you are professional in what you are doing do you get what I mean


so so there is a level of expertise there so there is a there is definitely a clear difference they have intersecting background they have intersecting they have the same philosophy okay but the outcome is extremely different and there has to be something that defines it to be different and art is so general


it's so general to the point that I think that design has to segregate itself


but can this need be perceived freely can can work can their work be perceived freely do you get what I mean


you know, can can their work be perceived freely and be enjoyed freely can the audience have a flexible opinion about this where the work is not based on just or on the audience itself but on the artist


part three debate topic three


okay everyone I will start today's topic is debate topic three books are dead films are the way to go and I agree I would like to define books as


a physical printed, uh number of sheets or paper held together by the two covers and yada yada yada you all know what a book actually is it can be written by, a single author or multiple people it can be drawn uh that can be drawn pictures in a book or there can be and there can be illustrations


ya it can be a collection of texts in a larger collection of texts but basically we all kind of have, in mind what book is okay so let's get started so my first point, uh to agree that books are dead and films are the upcoming popular trend now is that


is the difference of time so it is much faster to watch a movie in one or one point five hour movie compared to reading a three hundred page book, uh watching a motion picture is more of a passive experience but yet it imparts content in as much more easily consumable way than a book that's three hundred pages long can


so there have been countless movies there have been derived from written works to take for example , the time travellers five lord of the rings there are many sequels for each book harry porter and even uh Marvel comics


that have been taken from illustrations so to lament the popularity of films relative to books is to simply ignore the potential benefits that they offer everyone, because of the time it saves time and now in our society we are a fast moving world it's a fast moving age okay


second part would be engagement, uh movies are far more tangible because it's easier for viewers the perceive information visually and with sound and therefore it's easier to remember, you can plan out a movie day with friends and family order great food and watch err Netflix or watch anything that is yeah or watch YouTube


and basically movies have kind of in uh evolved into a form of social interaction as well and because it ties together so well it's it now becomes a way of life, yeah


uh my third point would be that with, motion pictures and with films with movies and with with large uh box officers just like booming in our age now uh with the decreasing number of books it has become more eco friendly


so there are I mean there are E books to cover that part but, in general the majority of books now are still physical books and there are still hard copy book lovers who love to collect books it's easier to stream or watch a movie in the theatre instead of using paper and killing trees and my last point is that without


uh film without movies without Netflix there will be no social media , or at least there is not going to be a very evolved one without movies there would be no gifs there will be also known as motion pictures by the way there would be no tiktok there will be no memes


there would no be there will not be a I mean there would be a lack for, any social media in our fast moving society and without movies that would be there would not be a part of the music industry that covers soundtracks uh other than for theatrical ones there wouldn't be so booming as it is now


yup our technology right now wouldn't be the same without moving images and without films, yup that's all I have to say thank you


okay


okay so uh Jia-Ling I I've heard


your your, points and uh there are some that I disagree with err you say that books come from text uh there's, there have been many uh of our historical books and everything that have built what is today but in the first place I am not saying that we shouldn't be thankful to books I'm saying that now with


technology today with society today films are more effective than books if you can see from you mentioned for school education , why is it that now for higher education instead of uh reading textbooks or or taking down uh


note sometimes they have uh online lectures that are already pre filmed even that can be considered a moving image which is also technically a version of a movie and why is it that


(ppc) that you separate a lot of what books are from film if essentially a lot of movies come from books do you get what I mean


if you say that is an entirely different world then why is it that they have multiple series multiple movies that are inspired from from from historical books from historical events that come from books


and they're thankful to that but they're just they just happened to be more popular and they make more money in today's society, yup so essentially they but you can be thankful to books but films are more popular right now they are more they make more sense as for E books I I do understand that that


it is, uh the more eco friendly portion and also films also come from script but people don't pay money and they don't learn more from the script itself the script is just the idea it is the movie that they look forward to


yup yup


okay so I understand the the


a lot of viewers would say that (ppc) that would say that uh books are less, err they they cover less of I mean sorry the the films cover less of the story of of books however it does not it is not


for all of it, if you take into account uh some films that are maybe placed on streaming websites like Netflix and such they have entire seasons for this and uh no information or at least most of information would not be left out


ya they are not , limiting or or summarising about five hundred pages into one episode they're doing into one season which is spanned out so therefore I disagree with that


something to think about yup


part one debate topic one


alright so uh just to recap the topic for the first debate uh the first the first debate topic uh it's regarding for the majority of the people the the arts are waste of time and how true is this of our society and uh


picking on uh the points that danielle has brought across uh firstly she mentioned that there was an survey done for over there uh one thousand respondents err made by uh and published on the straits times recently , and I would like to say that just because that the survey


was published on the national paper it doesn't mean that it is hundred percent accurate and telling of the entire societies , understanding of the arts uh why I say so is because they only surveyed one thousand respondents and it was unclear and it was never stated in the article anywhere where these one thousand respondents came from


so uh I think it doesn't matter whether a thousand people have decided for, uh the the entire country that the arts is not essential and there is published is like ultimately who decides whether the arts is essential comes from perhaps the artists themselves because what they are creating


with uh mean more to them uh because it's their life's work, and I also like to say that the article slash survey mention that, uh essential job is uh categorised as something that is most crucial some uh of people or professions engaged in the


in necessary work to that uh is fundamental to the survival of the society and I feel like survival the word survival is highly subjective, because is it not true that certain people would feel like uh perusing arts say uh movies music


thinks watching shows they go through these daily uh just so that they can give themselves as uh a semblance of calm or some kind of, comfort and in a personal uh viewpoint I feel like art is truly uh critical for me to survive because if I cannot imagine myself going through to day to day without say music to soothe myself at the end of a long day and as well as


to further bring across uh or rather pinpoint on that particular point of whether, uh arts like artist in in general is truly non essential I feel like the article didn't need to put the uh category of who is non essential because


if your point of bringing across uh who are truly essential in the in the bring uh in who who are the truly essential workers of our society today then to bring uh to highlight that artist are not essential does not actually bring across or support your point very much


and lastly uh for the first point is that, just placing the word artist on that article is rather vague because artist uh can uh what's that they can refer to a large majority of professions so it could be


say your visual artist doing their painting on a canvas, but it could also very well go to the architectures who create your buildings the designers who create your every day day to day uh objects who uh or even design on the website design and posters that we see and err signs that we we look at


as we go through all these so to simply just put a blanket statement on the fact that the arts uh is a waste of time I fear is too harsh and too much of a generalisation, and then going onto the second point I feel like uh uh danielle mentioned that


the participation has been going down or engagement has been going down for the arts in general despite the budget going up for the arts , but I feel like the barriers of entry to uh to actually getting them a monetary support from say the national arts council or governmental agencies are pretty high so for artist or any uh art practitioners who want to create their own work


a lot of these it support is actually not rendered to them and this is a based of a survey that was taken by the, uh ground up initiative of the of of of the arts uh practitioners group so an engagement recorded by the national arts council is not exactly the most accurate uh demarcation of the


the entire societies opinion as once again as mentioned in our previous point things that come from a governmental viewpoint doesn't actually necessary reflect the entire societies uh step entire societies understanding or actual reactions


and engagement towards the arts , oh finally these articles are also coming from a place of a top down kind of approach saw I would suggest to look more at , ground up initiatives and small societies which actually have real art art practitioners talking about their issues and their day to day concerns before considering that they are waste of time just because the engagement is low


yeah thank you,


okay, do I continue, okay so uh bringing up on the points uh uh as they, was as they were presented by danielle uh so she mentioned that yes sure the


I feel like her continual use of the as uh singapore budget uh of how many millions have been pumped towards these existing art communities again it is also, uh in my opinion not exactly accurate because existing art communities would uh would mean that these arts communities have been registered have been uh uh


at least they have a database uh in the national arts council but how many of how many of these artist actually err are from companies for example this database or this, uh registry of who are these existing art communities would be very limited to those who have actually approach the national art council to perhaps get funding whether on a personal uh basis


or whether as accompany uh and this uh make brings me to the question what about all the people who are falling through the cracks who are not eligible for these uh, uh grants or these uh who cannot apply for these applications because they are they might not be hundred uh they might not be singaporean uh or they're uh permanent residents but they don't


they don't fit certain criteria and if you look at uh the current uh national arts council plan uh and grants uh the capability development grant is act uh specifically make, for singaporeans only so what about all the other migrants or uh talents that come from overseas who are functioning and thriving within our society


and they live and are based in singapore so to just simply talk about the budget as a monetary uh indicate the of uh how the government supports art but uh and also talk about how uh engagement is low is very subjective because although of this is actually not recorded


uh and then uh on the last point that you mentioned that yes but like the the example that I said that Spotify say for example uh listening to music gives me comfort , but if we bring it to a further realm there are people with mental health issues who actually rely deeply on art or even people with disabilities who require art to find some form of therapy or catharsis


and you could actually argue that art actually gives them a better uh chance at life or a better quality of life, simply by very action of either engaging with music or creating their own art as these are patients actually require uh some form of therapy to process their thoughts


or mobilise their arms through dance so on and so forth one very important uh example is the way that the singapore dementia association uses dance in their , in their uh curriculum for the elderly without dance a lot of these elderly would never have been able to engage in the touch or socialisation with their fellow


uh age demographic and if you were to say that then that arts are waste of time then you would essentially be akin to saying that these elderly do not deserve a better quality of life because doing these things are waste of time so ya that's my last point to wrap it up


okay


alright part two debate topic two


okay so uh carrying on from where uh danielle left off uh so speaking from the viewpoint of the opposition, the question here mentions that art is not meant to instruct or influence it is only meant to be enjoyed do I agree with this viewpoint and as the opposition I would say that I do not agree with this viewpoint because


let's come from where uh danielle speaking from right so definition of art and design was very clear , but the essence of where of what she's trying to describe is that art essentially allows the audience to decide what they like or do not like versus design uh where in design what you create is users' specific it is created for specific use usually and has its


it requires a uh it requires to serve a need essentially and uh, I am not here to disagree with her definition but I would like to question uh the need to define these two uh


separate uh supposedly separate, uh genres of uh creating creative process right because if we look at design, how is it not a subset of where art uh is and art is simply a umbrella of where supposedly design architecture multi media


uh creative writing even uh it holds everything under its umbrella art isn't simply dance, music theatre it should ultimately house everything that is a creative creation under itself and as mentioned uh at the very beginning that uh and from the dictionary the definition of what an art actually is


is that it is simply the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination and if you want to uh nitpick at what art, is usually valued for then it is appreciated


primarily for their beauty or emotive uh emotive uh censorial power, you know and this is the definition coming from the Oxford dictionary, so uh if we bring that uh the idea back of how art is actually just an umbrella term for everything that's creative or imagination uh imaginative created but humans


then I would argue that to say that design uh cannot uh designers cannot be artist would be uh large flaw because, then you would be denying them of their creativity you'd be denying them of their ability to work on the say uh a client's brief because it requires utmost creativity to be able


to figure out the best design for their clients uh based on a harsh or rather strict dateline and a specific requirements while is also fulfilling their needs and while also making it beautiful cause that is the


ultimately I don't think any self respecting designer wants to create something that doesn't appeal to themselves and I think that in in itself very telling that most uh most designers, can be considered artist but you cannot say that all artist are designers it doesn't work the other way ya so I'll leave it at that


okay, okay


okay so to just round it up really quickly so uh danielle mentions that she disagrees with my categorisation of art being an umbrella term for all, uh possible design or other creative work and err picking back up on how she mentions that


design is dependent on data and I agreed uh as mentioned earlier in my example that it is dependent very much on a client's brief for example and a client, doesn't necessarily have to mean as a graphic design client could have been even uh people of uh any kind of age demographics so for example uh if you are a designer for


uh active wear for example active wear comes uh in this day and age has become more and more important to not only , be fitting to not only be ergonomic for the body it is also essential to look beautiful otherwise no one would buy it and it goes under the whole marketing idea of how do you make


design look aesthetically appealing as well and this brings me to that example that danielle mentioned earlier about toilet bowls, that there are uh that toilet bowls are essentially not really much the most aesthetic thing that you would imagine and it using ironically that at that very example is that not only are their aesthetically appealing toilet bowls out there uh mainly created by most japanese designers and artists


but there was a notably very famous artist called marcel marsh marcel duchamp back in the nineteen early nineteen hundreds that , uh based on art history actually placed a bidet toilet in the art gallery as a a work of art


and it's rationale of putting that there is actually to to question the audience on what actually is art, and I feel that that very action it brings uh to like everything that uh danielle has been speaking about today about whether design and art can coincide because essentially what marcel duchamp was trying to say is that how is it that you can put the most mundane item


most everyday use item in a uh in a in a , gallery and suddenly it it it it can be it sold for hundreds millions thousands you know and, his statement is basically to look at everyday life as art and if that work in itself is not a protest if it has no influence then why is it still remembered why is it written in the history books for art


and I would think that in itself it has already instructed future generations of creative to look at the uh way that art can be created in a very very new light so , once again when danielle says that uh designers are there uh it's not about them but the work


and that they're there to design the outcome would they have ever expected that the toilet bowl will be placed in the gallery and that's where, I would think that if that designer of the toilet bowl has never created the toilet bowl then same marcel duchamp would not have been able to create take that everyday item and put it in the gallery so how is it that they don't work hand in hand this is some something that I would like to bring to the mind and


basically finished my argument that art is definitely meant to uh instruct an influence is beyond entertainment and there's a lot that we can gain uh, uh from simply perusing art and understanding art in in more than one way because it's it definitely is an umbrella term for many things that we enjoy in life


thank you


yeah and that's where my I feel like we are my argument poked holes into what you just mentioned because yes essentially design is about a very specific use but I'm mentioning that design comes under umbrella so how under the umbrella of art so uh to mention that


to repeatedly mentioned the all of these items are created for a specific purposes and that they are not merely for enjoyment that they have a specific use yes but how they are eventually being used uh do they not bring comfort to our lives do they not make life easier for us to get through


how is it that they don't have influence on us the items created by a designer very much have an influence on us and therefore if I am arguing that it is also art, then there uh my argument sort of uh wraps


and agrees with what you're saying but it's just merely saying that designers can be artist but not all artist want to be designers, yeah


and here is another


okay and this is based on uh just let me wrap up so this is the based on the assumption of uh that all designers are essentially professionals whereas not all artists are professionals and I I beg to differ on that because if we look at art as a general uh umbrella for all things that


uh encompass creative work then the level of professionalism would come uh in relation to the time and the specificity of where they are in their lives as well as why they are creating and a lot of times artists whether they are designers or from other


uh backgrounds only create art because they are there to serve a a need that cannot be served from a practical standpoint yeah so


sorry I cannot I didn't catch the last part,


ah okay yeah okay but I think I will wrap it up there


part three debate topic three


alright so uh, uh speaking from the viewpoint of the opposition on the topic today that supposedly books are dead and films are the way to go do I agree and on the stand of the opposition I would say that no I do not agree that books are dead dead


but I was so ironically do not agree that films are the specific specifically the way to go so first let me define what, kind of books we are referring to in this uh


conversation uh debate ya so, books cover such a wide range of text and essentially all books come uh are text or illustrative books it could be graphic novel it could be uh


err textbooks they could be history books they could be err err you know as danny uh danielle mentioned earlier just essentially stacks of paper printed matter right but uh what the content of these books are err


are very subjective they uh come from wide range and varieties so taking that into consideration, films on the other hand are a very specific genre they're animated uh they are uh moving pictures and most of the time these moving pictures that are on uh shown in theatres or a on a on a digital format


on this day and age uh come from a space just like books a narrative so it could be a narrative whether of a of a documentary or a historical biopics anything but everything that is created comes from a text that is a narrative


so ironically to say that books are dead and films are the way to go it is a a it is a a statement that has a lot of holes and uh is a, it is generally generally unsound because what my argument is that uh there would be no films if there are no books and let me bring across some points to counter what danielle mentioned earlier so uh


she mentioned that it is it saves more time to watch a film and uh I, as much as that is true but the amount of time spend watching a film and how much of it is actually processed and uh, kept in the memory a a long term memory of the mind as supposed to reading a piece of text is debatable as written from most research done uh from cambridge that most books


uh still with a a child uh especially if they are read, uh in an earlier uh developed developmental stages of their lives as a prolific uh graphic images or moving pictures that they watched as children so


to mention that yes it is definitely easier to watch a film or moving image but the amount of time that the film stays in your mind, is not very much as a significant as say reading a book, and then ah also she mentioned that in this day and age uh most of us prefer to save time in watch films but I would like to mention that the accessibility of films comes from the assumption that all users of these entertainment or narratives


have the access to films uh so if we're talking about our society in particular , the lower income age range uh lower income people or perhaps even the age range of younger of the younger demographic might not readily have the access to watch films at the theatre or even have


a a a media device like a laptop or phone or tablet just to access films, and it comes from a space of privilege to speak about how films are the way to go and and and to completely deny the fact that most people from a


uh from say marginalised backgrounds or even just do not have the access to media uh playing devices they would be at a losing end if we were to eradicate books completely, and uh so and if we want to talk about how uh films have become almost a social


norm as a social bonding activity then we can also argue that you can also read socially book clubs have been a thing of a decades ever since uh uh, uh literature and the consideration of how do we break down narratives and texts have come into


the way in our everyday life and as well as our life of a as we grow up in our education, it has become essential in order for us to understand and make sense of life because essentially literature uh can cover films but as mentioned films come from a narrative or text and then uh


if you speak about how uh films have essentially become a very much close to uh our every like our everyday life is some is a format that we understand that has become the way of life then you would have you would have to consider a a history upon history that


many books have become uh have been a bulk of our educational learning process as mentioned earlier from very much child developmental process from nursery rhymes all the way to as adults where we write uh documents uh


for work or for leisure yup, and lastly uh if we're going to talk about it be eco friendly, danielle did mentioned briefly that books need not be printed they can be uh E books and that in itself is very economically friend uh economically as well as environmentally friendly


and if you want to talk about the uh about eco friendly idea the the concept of being eco friendly most films spend a lot of their budget uh, uh creating new objects or creating uh using spaces and


taking taking a lot of labour to create and a lot of this labour could sometimes be detrimental to those uh to the space around it films that are created say in a in , most uh large landscape like for example the lord of the rings are creator in the new uh new zealand uh in the in the natural landscape of new zealand a lot of work has been done there is irreparable the floor I mean the the grass would have to take time to regenerate and so on and so forth with all the battle scenes in the film


so that's just one example of course uh and bringing it back to the idea of a narrative to film still essentially has to come from a script , and if we want to talk about how we uh films have actually borne, the uh have actually become uh cause the birth of social media and the sharing of short clips and and perhaps even memes then again I would like to let uh talk about how a lot of this also come


is from uh, the essence of a narrative yeah I realise I have overrun , yeah


uh I'll just finish up then uh so again uh if we talk about effectiveness effectiveness then I would like to mention about, the studies done on the developmental brain of a child at their early time


yeah it is usually uh adsorb uh text is usually more well absorbed and yes I do agree that if you have online material and or images that accompany the learning of a child it would be more effective but that does not negate the need for a book


and then lastly why do films have more uh sequels is purely because it's uh all marketing scam and actually a lot of books have sequels to case in point the harry potter series which both have thrived as books and films but a lot of their fan uh


biggest fans will argue that the book is uh more accurate because it allows for the imagination of the reader to bring them on spaces that might not, uh fit with the film director's idea of what the books were trying to convey so if you're talking about how uh the script is merely the starting point