and therefore it is detrimental to them and their way of life for the way that they have been living through the past, thousands of years and they did not have like the conditions and structures needed to allow them to adapt in the modern world


and besides traditional values certain marginalised communities such as the poor also bear the brunt of the negative repercussions of change due to their own conditions and situations, the poor and


uneducated often find it challenging to pick up new skills and adapt to new technologies in a world that evolves at a breakneck pace where industries are constantly being disrupted and cheap foreign labour depresses their wages


taxi drivers in malaysia have also protested against technological companies like grab and uber they are threatening their livelihood for instance and they do not have such resource against such obtrusive change therefore change can sometimes be undesirable


as different communities adapt and come to terms with change at different paces so while I do agree with your examples where you mention that change can be good, I find that there will be ultimately some communities that are overlooked and due to the lack of access to resources and education they may not be always able to adapt to change in a positive manner


and as a result it may actually cost detrimental effects to them instead, so I believe that change is not always good especially when vulnerable communities are able are unable to cope with the change


that they have to live with


okay ya to conclude I actually also agree with you that it's very important that we change our mindsets to be more accepting towards change and with a proper mindset and proper access to resources that are needed to adapt to change change would always be good in that way


part three debate topic three


okay uh, I do acknowledge your points saying that, when you mentioned that, if murderers were are convicted for taking another human being's life then similarly for abortion it should also be banned cause it is essentially same as taking another human being's life


but, have you ever considered, that it also depends on the reason for abortion because I do believe that it is essential that abortion should, be made legal in certain circumstances or in for example in extreme cases where a woman is impregnated from rape


if a woman is raped when she becomes pregnant she probably would not want to see that baby given that it was an unwanted pregnancy and seeing the baby will only cause further emotional trauma, and


it may even cause depression so even if she were to keep that baby it's likely that the baby would not be healthy as well and even after they were to give birth to the baby some women would only look back at the child and only remember the pain and trauma that they had to go through


therefore, I strongly believe that in some cases they should be allowed to abort the foetus, and thus abortion should not be banned because with it being banned it will mean that it will be made illegal in all cases and it does not


depend on the reason for abortion, man cause woman to be pregnant but, it is the woman alone who bears the pregnancy and the child, for centuries


unmarried woman who became pregnant were jailed, humiliated and in some extreme and conservative cultures they were even killed, simply because they were pregnant but yet they were unmarried


they felt that these unmarried pregnant women brought shame on their families, no man would ever marry such a woman in certain countries and traditions which believe in the that


unmarried pregnant women are a source of humiliation, and as a result she could be turned out of her home and cut off by her family, so with this situation, don't you think, that the woman should have the right to abort the foetus


okay I, heard about you said about, the , abortion taking away the child's chance the unborn child's chance at life and the potential


of, and their potential to contribute to the society, but, I strongly believe that the cause of banning abortion outweighs its benefits, when


abortion is banned it would mean that it is actually illegal so, I really believe that abortion should not be illegal because , when it is illegal there will be a rise of black markets and


for women who really need the abortion and still insist on doing it they will go to this black markets for, abortion services, which is very unsafe, statistics show that nearly seventy thousand women die each year due to the complications of unsafe abortion


the use of modern contraception has reduced the need for induced abortion, yet young women especially when they are unmarried often face difficulty in obtaining contraception and


as a result when they are still impregnated they will then, uh resort to the use of abortion, globally women of all ages seek abortions but in sub saharan africa which has the highest highest burden of ill health and death from unsafe abortion


one in four unsafe abortions is among adolescents aged fifteen to nineteen years, so abortions should not be banned because only when there is a legal law that abortion is actually allowed legally


the mother will be safe , with the taking with the care from experienced doctors or nurses in hospitals, meanwhile, legalising abortion does not necessarily mean to force women to abort their children


and it does not actually mean that we are encouraging abortion, but rather, women can still try to abort the foetus and understand at least they have the choice to


uh choose whether they wish to abort, and it is also important for the society and the world to realise the advantages of , abortion, a woman does not want to be shamed by society and shame her and


to shame her family, in many cases an unmarried woman risks her life her family and all social positions, if she gave birth, even if abortion is illegal


it does not stop this woman from trying to abort, they will just simply resort , to going through, unlegalised abortions which is even more unsafe than if it were to be legalised and even if abortion is illegal and it is strictly enforced they actually have many other ways to get rid of the baby if they really wish to


some drink poison and some even throw themselves downstairs, and some of them even try to hit their stomachs so hard that they will actually lose the baby, and as recently as the nineteen seventies before abortion was actually made legal in the america


there were such women who were found to have paid for illegal abortions through very dangerous means, such as the ones I had mentioned earlier and thousands of these women bled to death and died from the infection after all these dangerous unprofessional and illegal abortions


so I strongly believe that if abortion were to be banned again all this will happen and there will be a rapid rise in the number of deaths from women undergoing illegal unsafe and unprofessional abortions


okay actually I do agree with you that when it actually comes to consensual and uh mutual , uh sexual intercourse between two adults they should be held uh responsible for their actions and they shouldn't just


err go around having casual sexual relationships thinking that uh even without the use of contraceptives they can always resort to abortion uh I do agree that in that way uh


eliminating the cases uh where victims of rape are trying to get abortion abortion should be banned in that case , because uh abortion shouldn't be seen as a means of birth control and they these adults should be


should acknowledge the fact that they should be using contraceptives and should never resort or rely on abortion as a form of getting rid of the baby that they later decided not to take care of they should be held responsible for their actions and


indeed abortion should be banned for couples who, decide to create a life just because of out of their own pleasure and later decide that they do not want to take care of the baby but I hope that


with regards to this the now talking back about the case about rape victims I do hope that abortion is actually would instead of banning abortion abortion can rather be considered


uh on a case to case basis such that , abortion should be decided whether it's legal or illegal depending on the reason for it, uh if a rape victim were to be applying for a abortion or to resort to abortion I find that it is totally understandable and should not be banned in that case but if it were to be out of


the laziness of the couple uh and to use abortion as a means of birth control then yes abortion should be banned


part one debate topic one


okay so I believe that animal lives should be equally, valued as human lives firstly this is because animals are capable of feeling are capable of feelings and emotions their they have a


consciousness and are sentient beings and they can feel emotions ranging from negative ones such as pain, to frustration and fear to positive ones like pleasure and happiness and they actively seek


seek out for this positive feelings so one of the first documentations of err animal expression was by charles darwin, uh in his book called the expression of the emotions in men and


animals and he wrote that all humans and even animals they express uh they express emotion to a certain degree through remarkably similar behaviour so in in in his book he went on to discuss how different animals exhibited


different emotions through their actions and even facial expressions so for example he drew figures of a, of a chimpanzee using he using his facial muscles to show expressions that were very similar to how a human would


then uh in more recent studies they have shown that for example uh in in the farming sector when a, newborn calf is separated from its mother it will


start to cry and show signs of distress and then they have also been observed to respond poorly to situations when they're in a what they what they refer to as a negative emotional state so this is very similar to how a depressed


or anxious human being uh responds to situations when they're in this negative emotional state so it's clear that non-human animals have a consciousness and are able to exhibit emotions like humans


so the lesson that we should take away from all these studies is that humans are more like us than we originally thought, they were so if they are able to


if they have feelings and emotions like us then why should they be valued as lesser compared to the human counterparts, okay


(hmm)


uh it is undeniable that humans are able to make a positive impact to the world around them, and bring about changes to the world that are positive but then if we looked back at history and even the actions that humans are taking today uh we must


also acknowledge that they have done a lot of, unnecessary evil and atrocities, and these are all caused solely by the human race so if we just reference world war two for example where hitler he believed that the germans were the master race and then he seek to eradicate the jews


I can draw parallels to this to your example that the male male lion that when he in taking over his pride just kills kills without like he just kills the future competition lah


even now the even now there's the black life matters , protests going on it shows that some humans actually believe that they are more


superior to another race so in this case the white some white people believe that they are superior to uh african americans in america so, this is clearly signs that humans do not always use


their power in in decision making to bring about positive change the, world so coming back to the point of, the debate which is animals the very fact that humans value their lives over non-human animals results in actions that is


for the gain of humans and at the expense of the animals the different animal race species, so there are many examples of these for example deforestation all around the world from indonesia to


the amazons to, it's for either resource gathering purposes like getting wood or to clear clear out space for building infrastructure and agriculture, and all this is at the expense of the indigenous species that lives in these woods which causes them to become


endangered and even extinct species another example, would be how many corporations or countries result they I mean they


they do what is known as ocean dumping without a care for the lives and micro and organisms that are living in the oceans this pollutes the bodies leading to marine pollution and, leads to damage to the environment and the animals living within


humans also choose to consume meat when it has been proven that they can survive solely on a plant based diet with some even demanding exotic delicacies or traditional dishes like shark fin soup and, uh and whale meat which uh which uses very uh inhumane killing methods and then they did some humans even demand for goods that


require animal parts like animal leather and fur when there are man-made alternatives, like synthetics that they can use instead so all these can be avoided because humans have the power to bring about change and they have the power to make the make decisions but they themselves choose not to


uh ah yes you mention that the humans currently they are, at least some organisations have been set up that are primarily focused on primarily focus on conserving and helping out endanger and extinct endangered animal species but


I feel that, the reason why we are even at this, juncture in uh in this juncture is because of the actions or even inactions of humans


that lead to this, situation so and this is fundamentally because humans value their own lives more than more than other non-human animals, and as I mentioned in my earlier point they they


take many actions that result in their gain at the expense of these species, so, I feel that humans either have to stop taking these actions that leads to negative situations and consequences for animals or they should at least


acknowledge their mistakes and come and and work together to do more for the animals instead


okay so I'll wrap up my point uh


I agree with you that humans have the power to take actions that preserve and protect animal lives but this doesn't mean that they should be valued any higher, or at the very least revalue the human's ability to


impact animals but not their lives but their lives should still be seen as equals in this world, uh and this is because of the, uh the reasoning that human eh animals are able


to feel emotions and they're sentient beings, and that, many of their consequences and situations that they are experiencing today are direct result of, human actions


okay


okay sorry


part two debate topic two


, okay I firmly believe that change is always good and always lead to improvements


in our lives and it also leads to innovations around the world uh the desire to constantly improve and the willingness to


to embrace changes in order to achieve better results and to adapt to changes has resulted in many innovations and inventions in the world that has allowed


our human race to come a long way in terms of technology and our quality of life, so the willingness of change have, has prompted the invention of many things that we consider necessities today such as for example aeroplanes the internet and computers which are very essential parts of


for the humans so, the aeroplanes were invented by the wright brothers because they saw the need to improve and explore new transportation means for the human race and then


they eventually invented a flying flying, vehicle known as the aeroplane that could be controlled while in the air and this this example demonstrates how uh


how someone's willingness to explore to explore new alternatives and be open to changes uh can have such a positive impact on society imagine if we did not have


aeroplanes in this day and age global travel wouldn't even be possible and the world will not be as globalised as it was today evidently change is good in that it provokes


improvements innovations and encourages people to discover and uptake new solutions thus allowing people to improve and innovate, this has allowed society


to continuously improve, for the better and not stagnant and not, stagnate and this brought about this brought us to where we are today, okay


I think uh your example of the CEO welch he's I feel like he's his thoughts towards change, may be a bit more exaggerated than and that his and that his followers mainly the entrepreneurs and business owners you mention that followed his advice seemed to be following it mindlessly and


doing and making changes for the sake of, change I believe that my my interpretation of his of his saying which is willingness to change is a strength even if it means plunging part of the company into total confusion for awhile I think what he's trying to say is that


, companies should even if a company is let's say at the top of an industry it shouldn't be it shouldn't take that, for granted and just not make any changes or not seek to make any


improvement just because they are at the top because because competitors around you are able to see what you are doing well and they can and they and they can emulate this parts of your organisation or even and


or they can even make in copy it and then made improvements to it and sooner or later, they will probably climb to the top and overthrow you I believe that what he's trying to say is that, a company


or they should embrace change in a way that, we should be constantly seeking to make improvements to ourselves and I feel that many people may have misinterpreted misinterpreted what he was saying and simply do very drastic


actions without much thought into it, so for my, so now I would like to talk about how change has affected


the world we live in today and also society as a whole so, with technological progress and increasing diversity society has learnt to adapt and conform to newer ideas and belief


and this openness to change has has led to a more an overall more accepting society that accepts different cultures ideas and beliefs that are different from their own so this has created a more


tolerating and and accepting environment for people to coexist despite their differences, so this is very this is a very stark and stark contrast from how things were in the past where


for example in america there were there was segregation based on the colour of your skin and there were like there were non-coloured designations, on buses restaurants and even restrooms where


ya in favour of white people so the world has, greatly improved in all these in these aspects and there is even and we have even taken steps towards legalisation of the


of gay marriage in some states in the united states and in taiwan, and decriminalise criminalisation of homosexuality around the world so these events would have been impossible years ago


and if would if humans and if we the humans and like government we were not open to changes all these were not have been possible so I feel that, evidently change can be a force of good that allows people to forgo stereotypes and remove outdated ways of thinking and instead to accept


new and more accepting views on how society should be and this is why change is always good for a society or the world at large


I think your example of the native these native communities, shows uh why change is very necessary, these these native communities


despite knowing that the world around them is changing they choose not to or at least some of them choose not to accept help external help from from, organisations when when approached by them and instead they choose to live under live in their own little world


not not, not trying to embrace and adapt to the changes in the world around them so


uh the human race has been evolving since hundreds of years err since ages ago and, we have been I think this has been the defining factor of humans is that we're able to innovate and make changes so from like the bronze age to iron age to now


and this uh, this is what separates humans from other at other species is that we are able to innovate so these communities and their reluctance to actually accept change shows that sooner or later they sooner or later


they will be left out I mean they are already left out but then it's it's just gonna get worse for them if they do not, if they do not, have a change of mindset and then decide to change with the world around them so maybe it's not so much that change is


always good but then if you are talking in terms of uh our evolution and our progress as a, race change is change is the very necessary thing for us, yup


part three debate topic three


okay I'm a believer that abortion, is fundamentally wrong and should be banned, so as humans we have created governments and systems, with the belief that killing


killing people and taking another human's life is wrong so murderers are convicted and sentenced to uh to prison or even a death sentence for taking another person's life, how is this different from a from an abortion studies and research have shown that a foetus in a womb is a unique individual with a unique genetic code


hence they should be shouldn't they be treated, equally as humans it is wrong to destroy a potential human's life and from conception onwards a foetus is a a potential human being this makes the act of abortion inherently wrong and no different from


from let's say a murderer taking another human's life with like let say with a knife


, I think we have come a long way in terms of and have, mostly eradicated all this kind of backward thinking where whereby unmarried women with who are pregnant are humiliated and treated as treated lesser than


others so I think in the age where we are living in today we have made a lot of progress in terms of that, and I'm not trying, to belittle the


circumstance where this where this uh unfortunate women who are raped and have gotten pregnant or in but then there are organisations that are set up, that are


that they are set up directly to help these people so they give them support from when they give them support from when they are pregnant and then,


to birth and then uh, these women can also choose to uh put the baby up for adoption instead of instead of having the responsibility to, bear to bear and


take care of the child for life so in these cases there are other alternatives from an abortion which is basically a death sentence for the baby, and this this rape victims can perhaps consider these other alternatives instead of instead of


looking for abortion immediately as an abortion can even leave them even further, even further damage knowing that they have taken another life, so I also like to mention that by choosing abortion


the child err the foetus does not get a chance at life and there are cases of abortion being abused by some women, where when they do not they do not use


they do not use contraceptives properly and instead view abortion as another just another birth control method for them when they are sleeping around so the consequences of this of their


actions is that the baby inside them, are the ones that has that dies, and has to suffer for it by choosing abortion the unborn child potential, of doing things in life and perhaps even contributing


to the society is not realised at all abortion is the lazy way out of a situation, where two where consenting adults decide to sleep together and they do not want the responsibility of bringing up the child together so as adults they should be they should be held responsible


for their actions instead of, using a abortion just because they're lazy abortion should not be the only choice shouldn't be the only choice that pregnant women should resort to


and there are other options available to pregnant women who do not want their who do not want their unborn child so for, example I mention adoption being the primary way


and yup, so I believe that putting up a child for adoption is always the better choice, as oppose to deciding to get an abortion


okay I understand your, points of that if someone wants to do something they will


they will, even go to extreme measures to get it done if it's if it's illegal , but I still think that it comes down to the fact that you are taking a unborn baby's life when they are doing an abortion I feel that it it should


still be banned but instead of the focus of this conversation should be towards, how towards educating the masses, on how on


how to even avoid these situations in the first place so uh this is not including the example of, victims of rape but more of consensual consensual sex and then by teaching them


about the use of contraceptives and why is why is it why it is important and to actually, educate them about the value of a life even if it's just a foetus, in in the womb and more can be also more can also be done to support organisations that that are


that are established to support women who, do not want the women who do not want to have children


but are pregnant so in this case it will be, through means like uh adoption mainly


uh going back to your point where if abortions are are made illegal and are banned


err women will seek, will go and look for err illegal black market abortions which are more unsafe , uh I think in


okay in the case of first world countries like uh the, security and laws are much stricter and this will actually make it less


and this will make it almost impossible for this for, illegal black black market abortions to be available, uh, but I do agree that


some women may still go to at to go to the extreme and, try to hurt themselves by you said drinking poison or hitting their own tummy just to try to induce and


uh miscarriage uh all in all I do see your, arguments in that abortion should be should be allowed in some cases such as such as rape but then I think an


emphasis should be placed on trying to dissuade the the victim to not take up an abortion and to tell them about the alternatives that are, available to them such as support when they are pregnant and up to adoption of the baby it when it is given birth


yup part one debate topic one


with the points that's raised by the proposition it said that studies have been found to be able to mitigate all these noises and reduce orders like uh so called moderate significance medication measures however uh the opposition finds that


these are just studies placed based on , practical , theories but it's not actually been proven before because there is gonna be significant impact done to the the nature reserve


through this direct alignment proposed by the propositions so you can you can see that like , the route that's going underwater, even though it's twenty five storeys below the nature reserve that seems to be deemed an a for uh widely agreed that


the impact of the vibration on the surface will cause a irreversible uh nature natural uh impact on the within the organisation I mean organism habitats, furthermore this impact is not widely being studied before and this is the first time that any uh engineering FEED is going to go through within and on our island as well as worldwide going through to to have such a


projects lastly which my point is on the , the white, there will be a better impact I mean a better contribution for towards conservation of this nature reserve is because due to the lack of land and nature space and wildlife in singapore


this is a very crucial catchment area is a very crucial beside being a crucial catchment area is also a very crucial area for a lot of different uh, habitats for different animals and organism


and then even though there's study that says there is small effects and small impact comparable to existing condition , if and even though as uh widely accepted but that isn't be any form of real testing and to actually prove that these are all predictive kind of measures instead of like a confirmation yup


okay but with all this mitigation uh efforts being put in place , mitigating a problem is, is worse off than preventing a problem from happening so why don't the skirting take place instead of having going through the problem and then spend efforts on solution I mean to mitigate away from this issue the the


solution is very simple and very obvious we should definitely, opt for the skirting to happen even though it it will take extra travelling time as well as extra monetary costs and resources but because


destroying and reversing to but nature's cause would takes up like longer and a longer and more straining uh effects on like say on the nature of the entire land so


my my question is then posted back to the proposition is would why why find , a cure to a problem when we can actually is better to prevent having the problem when there is a obvious solution to actually prevent this all from happening


uh so but as a whole as a economy, that nature reserve that piece of land is actually very essential because not only it is the home to many organism and as well as animals it is also one of the main central catchment area for our water


and uh we know that we we have the barrage we know that we know we are still getting water supplies from our neighbouring country but being one being one of the key catchment area , with such a project that's never actually been done before and with the so called removal and then trying to find solution for the mitigation for


the the environment , will cost too costly and is too much efforts to reverse if anything of a cause and effect with the given probability to happen so why not


we take a step back and think of taking a little lesser risk, and putting a little bit more cost which is land acquire from different land owners and build a safer, and more sustainable route for the entire nation because fundamentally uh not only just monetary but we also do need natural resources to survive and thrive as a nation and to help build the economy


and and it's still, understand that like proposition's side has proposed a lot of mitigating factors but like it's still the ground question of why finding


cure to an issue when we can totally prevent the issue why finding putting yourself , uh with more issues and challenges that is predictive uh but is not naturally uh resolved it's feel that like we can only work on a problem that's on our toes even though every what if we faced a challenge or a question that


uh we have never seen or predicted and that will cause a really irreversible effect cause effect on the not only environment but as well as the economy because , do know that the the area that will go undergoing it's uh a wet soil area and we will be digging twenty five storeys below but somehow nature has its own course to hold all these sediments together


do we actually have to dig that I mean go through this area to just to, to bring on this extra six minutes of savings in terms of travelling time I I honestly feel that there could be other ways


that could also bring in similar results and having this cross island line in my aspect in my in my own opinion to actually need to to cross this line I mean to cross this natural reserve , it's not totally not worth risk and reward kind of deal to begin with yup


(ppc) understanding that the this is not a overnight plan project but however, there is must be a reason and clear reason for the LTA to submit two proposal one travelling under the nature reserve and one as a mitigating measure which is the skirting measures because it bound to have its own risk if


the authority is very confident then these uh under nature reserve project (ppc) will work, uh you know with this mitigation mitigating factors or output and consideration , there shouldn't be a second route being proposed and I'm pretty certain that the authority uh brought up two options number one is because they you know they weigh on both cause and effects


Meiyou maybe the risk is not uh worth taking maybe we should go with the skirting effect and then measure it against the economic gains and the the time time gained in terms of travelling, so I'm I'm still with uh the opposition side stating that


with there's a way to, mitigate away from this issue that will be taking the skirting route and for go thinking about uh building the cross island line under our nature reserve thank you


no no as in just now was it is gone then the timer's gone, ah


part two debate topic two


I believe that uh climate change is a myth we all know this deep down


this may be taken like you know in by our fearmongering governments and corrupt scientist to make us believe so that man man is helpless in the phase of climate change because , how do we get all this information it's true these so-called third parties and you know organisation


be scientists uh be this uh OC OECD et cetera et cetera but what kind of exact studies have they actually being done and uh can they actually prove that uh climate change


actually is causing all this so-called catastrophe around the world because, there's what I believe that there's always a need for a check and balances, whenever there is a uh whenever like there is like a a thriving society says let's say capitalism


because like that's why you have like the job of the lobbyist going against for example pesticides and non-pesticide usage, so likewise for climate change this is maybe a form of check and balances set up by the opposition just to reduce or slow down their opponents on certain aspects of of so-called uh reducing them to stop


producing extra waste uh this will then lead to close down closing down of like certain uh industries certain factories and then thrive towards opening renewable energy, uh industry for example there's where the period of like china a lot of people a lot of like


uh companies got a sudden windfall , because they started developing so-called wind energy technology solar panel technology and then proving that you know using such renewable energy can help save the planet but


in fact that there is a real study and real numbers being shown is that most of these so-called technological advancement product we that that supports and, uh supports a renewable energy to help climate change actually is not efficient


we are far far away from this technology and we will is very hard to to replicate and to substitute uh versus what we can produce in terms of energy level by using by by using and burning carbon fuel and uh I I mean gas emission is inevitable but


I feel that these numbers are being overexaggerated by the scientists as well as some certain governments so that you know to weaken, the other stronger stronger developing and thriving nations


so I've definitely is with the proposition, on the so-called , shrinking satellite images of the north the the arctic ices the extinction of uh polar bears and whatnot but do remember and also yup this is the point that you have pointed out is that


the earth has gone through many different cycles of so-called changes in terms of like temperature in terms of , in terms of like is is very cyclical thing


so we started from the ice age and then the dinosaurs it's always evolving but we actually was a star uh very hot star and don't why don't we take a step back and think that maybe the earth is not changing but actually the sun is changing


because the sun is getting hotter is emitting even more radiation causing the earth to heat up, and get hotter so even though with all these so-called uh preventive measures and this ozone layer thing that is still a myth because there's no satellite to actually can see this layer of stuff


it was just based on prediction of how big the hole is that that is telling us that yes we have to start working on something and uh planting more trees stop deforestation reduce carbon emission


but then again we take a step back and think that ya it could be the sun there's nothing that what the earth can do, maybe perhaps elon musk is right we should move to mars, because there's where earth is getting hotter but it's not our fault because we are developing and thriving as a human race and try to create technology perhaps maybe this is god's calling for us to abandon this overused


place that we used to call home second second point ah the point out at like uh like climate change is is a myth and man is not helpless to it but because this all these so-called studies has been used to prove that climate change exist


they are very skeptical and questionable because basically what they do is they set up , greenhouses everywhere and they conduct on the concentration based on this particular greenhouse how much like you know carbon are we emitting and whatnot but they are using it to generalize across the entire earth and


I don't think that that is a very accurate results and why the, ice is melting and then sea level is rising that is just basically pure science right so just take for example would you expect the ice cube in your drink to last longer than five minutes we've been saying that you know


this ice cube been melting for like years is supposed to last for million over years and because it's during our time it started to melt but back then can we accurately tell, uh figure out that there's actually that much ice to begin with because it's a cycle it takes time to melt it's such a big space so it's not really convincing anymore to tell me that this ice will last forever and to last a next few millions of years


it's it's a very natural thing to to happen and then back then to mention about the heat wave , where did the heat all come from where did it generate from it's definitely not from earth right so we can point out and have good evident effects that this radiation of this sort of wave


that's causing earth to warm up comes from the sun and yes perhaps you can say that because of the tuning of the ozone layer but by now there isn't much of an effect to it and people are saying that we should plant more trees to reduce carbon emission but in fact


not all trees and all plants take in that kind of quality of carbon that we actually, release and ozone layer could be have been thinning even before industrialisation so


I still believe that climate change is a myth and man is not helpless in the face of it


actually I don't have much points to add on on this but, just to recap on why I still think that climate change is a myth it doesn't really come from the earth it comes from the external sources of the sun


and I believe that there is still a need for more uh research to be conducted before we determine that you know it's due to industrial pollution and gas emission , uh we understand the science behind it of the greenhouse effect however because like the earth


is always in a a equilibrium it heals itself over and over again, so why have this reduction to reduce our technological and human as a race advancement so maybe that is a way for mitigation uh even though there is


climate is changing but because we are facing a cycle as as earth as the whole universe itself, perhaps it's time to start innovation, or innovating on the products that help human beings to now live through this ever-changing climate from the ancient time we make ourselves from silkworm to cotton to jackets I'm pretty certain in the future we will have you know jacket that comes with air ventilation and that will be


a form to live because we always you know outlast and outbeat the environment being as a human as a race yup


part three debate topic three


going green doesn't make a good business sense because this brings away the focus of what is a good business , being a good business being being a good company being a good company means a profitable company


and we all look into numbers and going green only drives up cost and inefficiency it doesn't really bring in the profits as they so call a positive and


positive and complimentary points brought up by the proposition they are mainly uh very qualitative and unsupported even though it drives sales in certain aspect, but they only mention the sales numbers without actually uh top out the profits in actual fact this numbers in sales has gone up yes people do support them but it doesn't drive a very good business sense because cost has gone up profit has gone down tremendously


and this is detrimental to business for also like going green is detrimental to business for two related reasons it distracts from what business should be focused on which is being profitable and also undermines the proper business accountability


and as well that means to be accountable to its own shareholders so just bear by on large like when people buy and invest into stocks and buy into a company they look into is this company is going to thrive uh in terms of numbers so going green only


brings back the company by a few more steps and that are maybe positive reasons to believe so but they are not quantitative but qualitative reasons that uh we can't really measure


for one thing I want to point out is that


the reason why we are being here is because of innovation and because we are moving forward and moving forward we we tend to invent things that brought will bring us convenience take for instance plastics and plastic bags straws


why were these uh being invented in the first place is because it brings a lot of convenience and it helps to bring and improve our quality of life as human, and then now we have to go out of the aspect of going green


it doesn't make a big a good business sense even for human race itself as well as for the company and just to bring up the point further uh why it doesn't make a good business sense is that it's the company's ability to attain and then to retain sufficient


profitability to sustain itself and move forward but is at this process is already not easy and just to quote some numbers is that one in two businesses fail in every of the first five years and then slowly after one after ten years and one in less


uh one in three will not be able to survive in a ten year cycle so if I have a company that is so difficult to survive already put so much focus in trying to thrive and focusing as a company on profitability


uh bringing on an extra cost of being staying green and coming out this extra RND costs will only have more detrimental effects for the company and and not being able to account to the shareholders as put in so much resources and money into the company


there is that even though there are a lot bigger companies has already gone through this so-called and proposed CSR to help address going green issues to respect all stakeholders, but till now the numbers still doesn't show much accountability to its main shareholders


and and even to the customers itself, so like just as another example would be uh our fast food restaurant down in singapore KFC and as well McDonald's going green they they proposed to remove all plastic lids uh from the cup for takeaways


and even for having a meal that is like uh supposed to be a diet meals but, surprising enough after three months without any uh form of announcement, the lids got brought back because it is not convenient it is the make not making any business sense because their own delivery riders as well as many


customers came back complaining that their drink got spilled, they they require another form of like replacement cup, that drives up even more cost for the company itself, you may argue that uh we could promote uh when as a restaurant they could promote uh bring your own cup you know save the environment and go green and and as a company aspect but do you actually know that that actually drives in a lot of hygiene factors that has never been discussed


for example like during COVID period singapore government actually, encouraged people to to do more takeaways bring their own containers that was being proposed initially and then slowly it has been taken out because they realize that that actually contributes to a lot of hygiene factors because uh there could be issues where


households or people bringing their own containers which had not been washed properly and brought down to different restaurants and to take away food in in the end resulted in like food poisoning not because of the food produced by the restaurant but because of their own negligence


and this drives unnecessary cost and inconvenience for the businesses so that that being said this is why you know, uh business having a good business sense and is very important to a


company was only being focused on profitability and as well shareholders' accountability not so much into going green and going through the CSR uh programs and then, uh back to this CSR programs were actually led up by a lot of anti-businesses environmentalist who thrive to greenwash the general public


and and as as as sound as as hypocritical it is, is actually a form as other organisation trying to drive new industries like coming out with CSR consultants and experts try to try to remind different various big organisation that this is important but in fact it is not is is just like uh climate change


is something that is fear be be instilled within different organisation and different like levels of industries


just to bring back a point on this trial and error stuff yes Samsung was like maybe named one of the worst, CSR company that doesn't deserve to go green but however it's uh they are still putting continuous effort but don't you think that this is pretty much critical in the sense that like


they are still building a lot of non-eco friendly TVs handphones electronics cars that doesn't really promote about going green, but their so called corporate image and PR image has improved because they decided to plant some trees in the forest that is not somewhere to counter right you know as a company and and pretty much they have figured out that you know going green doesn't really make any good business sense at all


but only maintaining a hypocritical upfront makes business sense going green doesn't, and then bring forward to the point of McDonald's and different fast food and why you know they stopped serving sauces in packets uh mainly because singapore has improved as a society that we are matured that we are able to you know


have the we know how much sauce we want to take whenever we we need we only take whatever we need, and previously the nineties and early two thousand this was not introduced because we have a very, worldly uh recognised spirit called Kiasu because of that and uh we tend to overtake things that we don't need and this this is still a cause and effect in we can still see in fast food change of McDonald's in other cities in in the in in southeast asia


because they are not developed and not mature yet they get the same mentality so the government I mean the the restaurant had to use a per packet kind of like a system to limit, the sauce use and fundamentally this is still driven by cost not so much about going green and at the back of it that drives the change in the fast food uh system and


so going green really in different, industry plays a different role you can't expect like uh electrical plant I mean uh electric plant to say that I want go green but uh limiting the amount of energy I'm going to produce uh it's it's not


it's not feasible and and we could perhaps, uh you know go green by you know if if if there's more organisation that go through RND to bring down like to replace different uh products to replace say plastic but


we have just awarded the threeD printer as the the latest and greatest uh innovation of the twenty first century by bringing threeD plastic printing into our household wouldn't that seems very hypocritical


we actually can now produce plastic from our own home other than the the factory in china and and we're here talking about uh company should go green and make business sense that's that's something not viable to me


okay , part one debate topic one, okay constructing the cross island MRT line under our nature reserve has its benefits


uh number one is it helps to reduce commuting by six minutes and it also helps to reduce public transport fares by fifteen percent the other route is a nine KM stretch going around the reserve and under homes and businesses, increasing end-to-end travel time the longer skirting alignment will significantly en route the usefulness of the CRL for the commuters who may choose to continue using existing lines buses or cars instead


this option at an estimated two billion in cost which will come from taxpayers' money and the government said that it may also need to acquire land affecting the residents around the area granted there are major environmental concerns surrounding this construction


LTA state in a statement that it expected environmental impact of both routes is largely confined to parts of the tunnel and construction worksites outside the nature reserve, and he added they added at this can be managed by robust mitigation measures for instance locating worksites as far as possible from the CCNR


they have also come up with a comprehensive environmental monitoring and management plan EMMP for short to protect flora and fauna , they have also engaged an independent panel of international advisors comprising industry experts and tunneling and underground constructions to review engineering schemes for both routes and concluded that tunneling along both options is a safe is safe with controlled measures in place


now these findings are part of the environmental impact assessment EIA for short for the cross island MRT line near the reserve that they have put in place to mitigate environmental impact of the chosen alignment, and this is just an example of their finding as well as solution


so for the direct route the impact to people during construction phase includes an impact on nearby water resources and noise pollution to windsor park residents due to the construction activities, the study noted that this impact can be reduced to negligible to minor significance with mitigation measures like the diversion of water discharge points from the worksites to drains that are not connected to nearby streams as well as the installation of visually compatible noise barriers


okay move on to kevin


I think that when it comes to any new projects that the government initiates or a major company initiates there are bound to be a lot of problems ahead, which may or may which we may or may not have solutions to there are there have been tests and studies carried out by industry experts to


to foreshadow to forecast what might possibly happen, and I agree that we may not have the exact solution to the problems that we may face by building the MRT line under the nature reserve but I think it's very reassuring that all specific concerns on tunneling work had been very well addressed


and any possible spill effort over effect has been acknowledged, you mentioned about the impact on plants and animals during the construction phase uh because we'll be clearing forest habitat , which will have an inevitable impact on the stream system


orders can be reduced to very little significance as long as there are mitigation measures like shepherding wildlife and erecting barriers during worksite clearance, and of course artificial crossing aids to reduce the impact of habitat separation and this artificial crossing has been uh


used before when they built the BKE highway they they created an artificial bridge for animals to cross between the two highways so that their natural habitat would not be compromised, I also want to, uh bring to your point that the relevant authorities spent the past six years consulting with several stakeholders such as nature groups uh advisers and grassroots leaders


and I would like to quote the chairman of the friends of bukit timah forest community group he is also the chairman of the worldwide fund for nature WWF singapore joseph cove said that, while the skirting alignment is the preferred option for the nature groups they are also aware that the political leadership has to make a decision and biodiversity is just one of the aspect concerns


he also added that with the safeguards put in place which may or may not be perfect right now but I'm sure the relevant authorities will continue to work and improve them K this can actually help mitigate environmental impacts which both which then make the direct alignment more acceptable


well the skirting alignment is a more preferred choice there it comes with its problems as well like land acquisition and removing residents from their homes when they stay around that that area


I won't say , that moving forward, when it comes to projects like this there is always a a solution to any of the problems that we face and, the government can continue to engage the nature community for both alignments


if they were to choose if they but to change their mind and choose skirting alignment because that also comes with, its uh environmental problems, but what, we should do as a community as a government that you engage with, industry experts with nature community in their advanced engineering phase as they will be definitely of tremendous use


they can come up with solutions to retain larger trees as well as helping to audit worksites to ensure that the environment management and monitoring plan is dutifully carried out, yes there will be, certain impact to the nature reserve


but the government can also consider having compensatory work such as forest enhancement and forest defragmentation projects, but in any case moving forward engagement with any nature and wildlife experts can become a common practice in future development planning for this can lead to innovative and bio diversity friendly plans which will minimize the need to have mitigation and risk reduction should there be any trusted ecosystem


bring it back to your point to say that we should just for forgo a a uh construction plan just because it harms , certain aspect of the environment may be a bit shortsighted because in the long run we have to look at it from different perspectives when it comes to a political decision it's not just about caring about one aspect of the society you think about


the people you've to think about the cost you've to think about the economy and at the end of days weighing which is more important and while forgoing the environmental aspect but still coming up with solutions that could help into mitigate this problems


I think that your point on how they are, there is another option to, that we can consider, because it's more important to save the the nature reserve than to take into time-consuming and money-consuming option


I'd like to emphasize that the other route, the skirting alignment, it's gonna take up more transport time , which wouldn't make much sense to therefore build an entire MRT line if commuters can just take the existing buses trains to one from one destination to the other destination and if that's the case then


why even build a a MRT line that, could actually potentially save us more time, but if it not if it's not gonna save us time then there are people gonna say then what's the point what's the point of building spending so much money on building a track around the nature reserve but the commuting the transportation time is just the same or maybe even longer


then it bound to take my bus and my train to to where I need to go, and I think that, money is still a very big concern in in society, and as a society as as economy as a whole the economy growth is still our number one factor something that we put in be prioritised more that's not to say that we don't take the environment concerns into consideration


the fact is that , we may not fully mitigate all the problems that will arise from building this line but we are working towards , coming up with contingency plans coming up with uh solutions that could


that could you know form, in a structure infrastructure not just for this project but for future projects and I think it's very reassuring to see that, going forward we don't just you know not take into not take environment and the environment into consideration we do and


the the number of years that they go through to have to make this decision is very telling of how much consideration has been put to make this uh decision to build the MRT line underneath the nature reserve, this is not just a decision that was made overnight this was a decision that was made by many many stakeholders by local by foreign industry experts on engineering on tunneling before they they they weigh the pros and cons before they come to this conclusion that


!hey! this may not be such a bad idea after all , so I I don't think we should belittle the decision that the LTA has made because it was many years in the making and it was actually six years six to seven years in the making


and I think knowing that we can trust that whatever decisions that they make whatever solutions that they have, plan to put in place is sufficient for us to know that this will not be , so detrimental to our nature reserve


okay do we can we do we still have to continue or do we have ten minutes stop


part, two debate topic two, man is helpless in the face of climate change okay climate change is a very complex and intimidating threat


its impacts are often not immediately noticeable nor the benefits of acting against it, so there's this general feeling that the future is so uncertain and it can be extremely hard to live with, knowing that there's only so much we can do as one person it can make people feel helpless and powerless


it feels like anything you do is totally insignificant compared to the scale of the challenges that we face, an example I can give you is based on the UN's landmark twenty eighteenth report, it called for urgent and unprecedented changes to achieve a reduction in carbon emissions of forty five percent by the year twenty thirty if you want to keep the increase in global warming to one point five degree celsius


beyond which the report warned of, catastrophic results including flooding extreme weather drought and famine, so it's very easy to feel overwhelmed by the magnitude of the issue and mindful of your position is just one person on the planet of billions we are actually in fact at the mercy of the natural forces


uh no matter how much we think these days that we have greater control of our own lives through the great advances of science and technology, we do have greater control of our lives but compare, to the enormity of natural forces of this kind that we see nowadays we are literally sort of ponds in a greater universe


humans have caused major climate changes to happen already and we have set in motion more changes still , so even if we stop emitting greenhouse gases today global warming would continue to happen for at least several more decades if not centuries


that's because it takes a while for the planet for example the oceans to respond and because carbon dioxide the predominant heat trapping gas will still linger in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, so there is a time lag between what we do and when we feel it and that is why man is helpless in the face of climate change


I can understand where the opposition is coming from in that, certain climate change experiments and facts that you can find on the web may not be entirely true, but we cannot not


deny that climate change is real , and we have experienced it first-hand ourselves when we look at natural disasters such as the recent wildfire in australia and in that something that's very telling


because this such a, catastrophe doesn't just just happen for for no reason right , the wildfire started because, of overheating and what causes overheating


the increasing number increasing emissions of carbon dioxide, and there are a lot of myths around , floating around the the internet, that, that I think are there because people are afraid people deep down are afraid of climate change and therefore they will rather choose to be in denial than to face what's really going on in the world right now


so there's another there's a myth for instance saying that, the climate has always been changing temperatures have always been rising that's not something new so why is it such a big deal, over the course of the earth's four point five billion year history


the climate has changed a lot and that is true, but the rapid warming we are seeing now can't be explained by natural cycles of warming and cooling, the kind of changes that would normally happen over a hundreds of thousands of years are happening in decades


the planet's average surface temperature has risen about zero point nine degrees celsius since the late nineteenth century, a change that is driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere, and a lot of reason why people feel that climate change is not real because they don't they don't feel they may not necessarily feel the effects directly


temperature has been rising but as an individual you don't feel it, but that aside you can we can there are many other more compelling evidence in the world that, proves that climate change is real, take for another instance shrinking ice sheets in the greenland and antarctic


these are visible changes that we can see, okay the ice sheets have decreased in huge masses the data from NASA's gravity recovery and climate experiment show that greenland lost an average of twenty eight billion tonnes of ice per year


between nineteen ninety three and twenty thousand sixteen while antarctica has lost about hundred and twenty seven billion tonnes of ice per year during the same period, and this has a lot of , adverse effects on the wildlife in this area like the polar bears polar bears are close to extinction


and again this is not something that happen out of the blue, , I can a closer to home example when there was a COVID-nineteen and everyone was quarantine practicing staying home


, instead of going out and we see a drop in carbon emission we see that the the ozone layer has improved by a bit and that's very telling that you know not all climate change studies out there are


false, there are false studies there are uh numbers that have been exaggerated you know to cause, fear among the people, but, there are also studies in the market that


prove to be true and, sure sometimes the way they phrase it may be to cause fearmongering among people, but there is nothing, inherently wrong in making people afraid that


their actions will cause will have detrimental effects because how else can we move forward to to make the world a better place not just for our generation but for the future generation


I think it's funny to to point out that, that the opposition's view, of how, climate change is a myth, exactly why people feel helpless in the face of climate change for people who believe in climate change anyway


there was this is very evident from a thirty years of open-ended polling conducted by this survey company called Gallup , and open-ended polling is especially interesting since it elicits an unprompted response from the individual


so between nineteen eighty nine and two thousand and nineteen Gallup has asked what do you think is the most important problem facing this country today, jobs the economy and healthcare often at the top of the list, environment pollution is not often mentioned maybe because the bulk of people think that climate change is not real or is a myth


in fact over a thirty year period, it was mentioned by anywhere from less than zero point five percent to eight percent of the public, in the more recent twenty nineteen poll in august, the government slash poor leadership was mentioned by twenty two per cent of the public


and immigration by eighteen percent, environment pollution climate change garnered only three percent of the public, and in some earlier polls climate change is not even mentioned by a significant portion of the public, so people will understand that they should act in a certain way for the greater good


but as individuals they don't see the point in turning off their air conditioning or stop flying to places for vacations knowing that others will not be joining them, and


not the step but political leaders and big businesses they bear the bulk of the responsibility but they are never gonna be incentivised to save the environment because that will never be their first priority take president trump for instance he recently pushed back all efforts to protect the environment uh he wants to puzzle scientists


and guard any government programs that have to do with protecting the environment of fighting climate change nor his administration recently rejected the use of computer projections to access how a warming world might look after twenty forty, maybe that's because he doesn't believe in the real impact of the climate change but it's precisely because of the mentality of people like that


that make people who believe in climate change feel extremely helpless because they feel that nothing that they can do, will bring, this the the world any good, you know there may be a lot of voices out there that that try


to to fight for environment but there is a lot more people who are not speaking up, who are very indifferent to the environment and when you put this kind of thing into perspective it is completely understandable why there's such a thing called eco-anxiety why people are stressed over the environment


because apart from, study scientific studies have shown that climate change can may a real thing but then nothing has been done about it and the fact that there are people still exist who think that, climate change is a myth or the studies shown are not real


and it breeds out this fear among people which is which cannot be helped, and therefore, man do feel helpless when it comes to trying to make the world a better place because they feel that there is nothing they can do to


to help mitigate environmental concerns if there is no collective effort by everyone to do the same


three debate topic three, environmentally minded company policies


can make good strategic sense for businesses, going green can be part of a company's corporate social responsibility initiative, people nowadays are more attuned to the environmental concerns around the world high environmental standards are not just desirable anymore


it's a birthright, the chief executive of media creative and digital communication agency Dentsu mister nick waters said that many people are becoming more environmentally aware especially the younger consumers who place an emphasis on a


brand sustainability practices in their purchasing decisions, and as a result you you can actually see a lot of brands, they are increasingly putting focus on green efforts and we see service based new economy clients having a stronger appetite to go green and this is usually because their business model allows them to be more agile


it is very easy for companies to come under fire if they're found to be damaging the environment, it doesn't help that the whole cancel culture is very prominent in this day and age, you will lose market share if you do not try and differentiate your products environmentally speaking


and but if done well, being green is actually a genuine opportunity to increase sales especially with millennials, who arguably are more sensitive to most green issues, going green also have has reaped some benefits for some companies here in singapore


affect price the demand for environmentally friendly kitchenware and picnicware has increased by about fifty percent over the past three years, while the demand for products


for environmentally friendly household cleaning personal care and baby care products, has grown about twenty percent, rate month also reported very similar growth, it's FSC certified toilet paper sales for example, have more than doubled in twenty seventeen compared to twenty sixteen


and this is why going green can make good business sense if done if executed properly


I can I see where you are coming from in that there are costs involved in differentiating your your products from your competitors just to be more environmentally friendly, and transferring this cost to your customers may also not be a very viable option


but for for this kind of differentiation to makes business sense you need a willingness on your part to pay for the customers and create a very credible communication method for letting your customers know where you stand


and you also need to prevent competitors from imitating your methods, alternatively you can up the ante of on a competitive level within your industry, by raising your own cost in order to provide an environmental good but also figuring out a way to force your competitors to raise their cost even further


and you can use this thing called the portal hypothesis, by revisiting many systems to ill internal cost reductions that can be better spent on social benefits, and for this to work long-term you need to find out the flaws in your current system and instigate active ongoing learning and improvement around the company


yes, profit making revenue sales and all that, they are still very important factors when it comes to building a strong company, but, moving forward with so many environmentally attune people


there are gonna be a lot more detrimental , effects if you don't go green when it comes to your business practices, there are a lot of products that consumers have cancelled because their packaging are not sustainable


and, with this kind of influence on social media you cannot afford to not, go green, and put a bad name to your brand, because word travels very fast people are very easily


influence gen Z millenials are very impressionable, the second they see that people are not , you know buying your products because you're not sustainable do you want to jump on the bandwagon, because number one they want to feel good about themselves and number two they want to follow what their favourite influencers promoting


and all this will have an impact on your on your sales and if you want to measure whether going green will cost more than losing a huge chunk of market share because you choose not to go green then, it wouldn't make very good business sense


for companies like, BP car companies like Volkswagen and all that it might actually cost more not to go green because of the taxes that the government has in place for the number of carbon emissions that they produce


and if you do the math it might actually make more sense to invest more in RND to to avoid paying for this additional cost like your your carbon emission tax et cetera


I agree on your point that, going green may not be suitable for all companies because there are a lot of cost, that may outweigh the other, benefits and this is very applicable to small businesses why going green may not make sense because they may not have the capital they may not have the resources to support


such a initiative, but they can still take baby steps towards going green, this is a lot more applicable for big companies like Samsung , who was


ranked I believe D or E in terms of you know, their going green initiatives, and they have enough resources to, to try and uh go green


because, you know there there are big companies like them are under very harsh scrutiny and any one more any one wrong move can bring very bad PR relations, going back to your point on McDonald's removing plastic lids uh for takeaways and all that going green is a very trial and error process not every going green effort might make business sense to the company


and, you need to try out different, you need to go through trial and error to know what works best for you, for for fast food, restaurants they've stopped giving out chili packets and ketchup packets uh when you order in instead now you


you use that plumb to dispense your your condiments and this has been something that they are still doing because it's one of a going green efforts that actually worked, and they can actually save a lot of cost from producing the the plastic sachets for these condiments


so it's not entirely true that all going green efforts, may may not make business sense it's all about trying and taking the initiative, to to test out different different uh ways that would help both the environment and your company when when consumers see that you've been putting in the resources putting in the efforts they they will feel that


this is a company this is a brand that I want to continue to support because not only does it reflect well the company it reflects well on me too, so, I don't think that going green would make with uh be more


detrimental to a company I think if you do enough RND enough trial and error if you have the in if you have the resources then something good can still come out of of it


part one debate topic one, yup


hello !huh!, , oh, yeah


okay


okay, , do do I just start uh okay so for


the statement of how animal lives should be as equally valued as human lives I would take on the opposition stance and to start off I would like to, firstly define what value means and following


the oxford dictionary value is defined as importance worth and usefulness and I would like to use two different points of views to explain how , the lives of humans would


would take superiority over animal lives firstly I would like to talk about the natural elements of things and how , some might say it's like a spiritual point of view or a religious point of view but it has come to major consensus that humans have


an extra element into them as compared to animals and that is the three elements are body soul and spirit while animals do not uh, possess the idea of a spirit and looking at several different religious texts there is a common idea of how humans are superior in that way that we have


we are able to form relational , we are able to form uh stronger relational bonds and communication skills as well as develop feelings like empathy and deeper cognitive understanding and abilities and in that way as I would like to bring towards the other point of view which is


the more biological and natural point of view uh which I said earlier of how we are part of the food chain of the whole, tree of life and we are at the top of the food chain and following the whole idea of a predator prey relationship even among animals


when when one is the predator predator it is the only natural thing for self uh self preservation and survival


purposes only that it is natural for lives to be lost and, I would like to talk about how in just this setting of how the debate is done between humans this is not


feasible among animals as animals do not have, that higher, intelligence and ya I would like to come out with one case study which is on a news that was was dated a few years back


when a a gorilla was a gorilla was being shot down to save a four year old boy uh four year old boy, and that like started off uh a huge debate and, a huge discussion on how why uh


why would a a human life would be more, precious than a gorilla's life and, I would say like it's it is the most logical point as you as the people who shot down the gorilla ya humans themselves and it is part of our own nature to preserve and protect our own kind first and I believe that that would be seen in other


animal species as well , ya and therefore I would like to conclude uh my point of how in this context that human lives would be significantly more valued than animal lives


thank you


okay yeah uh


I have heard from PA and I would like to address that , first and foremost !whoa! the first the okay I'll talk about the elements first , to just give more context in that so


for example I will take on the christian religion as an example that that would I will also add on the support from biological the biological evidence to add on


to it so one point that is seen is how uh that is seen in the bible is that the human brain possesses qualities that have no parallel in the animal world, explicitly the mental capabilities and faculty of speech and the way man can express emotions not saying the animals do not have such abilities but they cannot be compared with humans


and just going into the more scientific route , it is seen that even though I'll take uh for example the chimpanzees that we have very very similar DNA that we are all created with the same chemical compounds and


building blocks but it is seen many of such research that it is cause of how humans have a significantly large amount of , non coding DNA that is


not present in any other living species that gives us the ability to mobilise our nervous system and our , social response system in a way that would is undeniable that we are able to possess higher of such cognitive cognitive skills and


on the other idea, how to say ah ya and I think that that being said


oh okay but ya so for that point where how humans write the religious texts , it is just seen in this example that humans having the ability to write down historical evidence or even just write down their own thoughts to express themselves that can be kept over generations is a point made that


other species aren't able to do that and aren't able to , to really have that , extra, no to have that unlimited


no, , uh that animals are what's the word , , , we are


like we have we just have much more resources to be able to even consider ideas of values and ideas of perseverance into, account because most animals they live with the main purpose of survival and continuing their species


and and it is it's because of this higher the, what I said earlier was like the element of the spirit uh we are able to consider these even these themes into account, and ya on top of that I would just like to say that


even though my point is that even though it is, evident biologically and ya biologically that we are superior in terms of our value and our importance of or our usefulness in the world that doesn't mean that we should be


using this power to belittle and to discriminate other living things and on top of that I would actually like to say that using this , , advantageous trait of us having this extra element and also the the ability to


really feel deep emotions like empathy and , understanding and the idea of pain or or, or just being able to relate to another being that we should be using these skills to, protect other living things as well and


ya, that that is my point thank you


thank you


uh part two debate topic two


, you so I will be taking on the role of the opposition, how change is always good to start off I would like to know a few things that in the statement itself the use of the absolute term of always makes it a very


, extreme stance where it indicates that there is no exception to the cause of it being a good thing and the idea of change in its core, change the word is a neutral term but it also means that it could be seen in several different context and


even though I agree with uh PA's point on how change there are good things to come up from , change we cannot ignore different other aspects other different other aspect aspects of how change could actually be more disruptive one example is


like you mentioned earlier on the idea of climate change it's a natural it could be some people think it's a natural thing some people think it's men led there are so many different opinions on that but in its


in the process of climate change itself it is disruptive it destroys it's destroying the ozone layer it is causing , many different species in the world to extinct there isn't there is much more negatives out of the idea of climate change uh as compared to the positives which some people might say that there might be a


small species that a small group of species that are benefiting from climate change but, and looking in the proportions-wise climate change has definitely brought much more destruction


and , going towards a a more uh individual setting that if you look at change in terms of human character values and their habits change when it's done for the better will definitely


bring out , good character and even just bring out the best in people but if you change for the worse if someone decides , when when


people change in terms of becoming worse individuals that could be a destructive thing and but I would like to say that, , that in this stance I would like to say that in


instead of looking at how change could be seen in its extremes we could see, that change is something that's inevitable and that , even looking at the singapore government on how it is being thought in many many in all schools actually on one of the key points in good governance is to anticipate change


I think that it is a more essential role to focus on how we anticipate, and foresee changes that are inevitable, and that even in the in


the cost of when change is going towards the worse and more detrimental direction that we are able to counter it, uh ya thank you,


yes ya and l would like I guess from there we uh I would also like to add on another point that , sometimes even though the change in a certain context could be good it could be beneficial but


if you are looking at how , uh we're looking at the more uh a more realistic view on sometimes that change could uh change could be good but it might not be the absolute necessary at that point as it could as change could be time-consuming and energy-consuming as well and that could also cause


other factors to be , , and it could it could bring up more stress uh and more cost and it could be even more destructive than it was previously and


ya but that being said I think the conclusion that we both have is that instead of putting the word change on the extreme ends I would like to say that


we should take on a more anticipating , viewpoint of the word change as it is inevitable and that in this world today that is so fast paced and that is much more progressive every time that


as an individual or even in uh societal or government setting that it is best to always be on the ball and , to always plan ahead and to make all, necessary precautions and preparations in order to reap the best results from whatever change


we are trying to put across or attempt ya thank you , I I ya


(mmhmm)


ya that's definitely a very pressing issue that, just using that example of how the the progressive nature of how the use of robots and the use of artificial intelligence


if you can see that change in so many different lights some might say that this is an advancement this is this is a success in one of, in in human history that we're able to create such complex products that are able to do so much of what uh humans are able to do


but also if you look at it in like, the more social and more , natural uh prospects it could be very disturbing and it could be very uh problematic like another example is


the there's this whole hot debate of like designer babies and how science has advanced and and technology has advanced to a point where even the most natural things like, a a child birth or a human identity can be altered and changed uh this has brought so much of uh ethical concern that


is should not be should not be uh likely looked on looked lightly on and but but that that was just, bring about the the whole idea of how this change


even though it could it could , be removed completely but, if you look at it realistically it is inevitable but , just putting just looking at the jobs context even though twenty two jobs are lost


with this loss uh with this advancement in technology that could create even uh there there might be other jobs are being created in the process as well and this might force the humankind to go much more into


the importance of white collar jobs that require much more of the brain or the the part of, us humans that makes us so much more different to other species and even robot


like our our mind that , and it will it will force the humankind to constantly try to improve ourselves and this change could be seen as good and


ya so I would I would just like to conclude with the the idea that in in this world of ever, changing, future that it is the best the best and the most


promising way is for humans to for individuals like us to equip ourselves with all the necessary skill sets in order to face whatever challenges and changes that could come


in the future thank you,


uh part three debate topic three


okay uh thank you P A uh, so, I will be taking on the opposition stance that, my stance is that abortion should not be banned


this issue is basically in another way of saying is pro choice or pro life right and, and the idea of pro choice that how people should have their right to their own bodies I would like to first talk about a more women centred perspective that


, and , though the, reasons to why one would choose abortion varies , there has been uh significant


there's a higher proportion of such cases with the reasons of cause of , sexual assault and unwanted pregnancies that in that woman's life was not she was that the individual wasn't given the option


to have the pregnancy in the first place and , and just talking about how , an abortion or even the pregnancy what effects it has in terms of health to the woman's err reproductive system it is


we believe that the right of, which the individual has for her own health and her own body should be given especially in cases where these pregnancies were not wanted and wasn't


and the woman wasn't given the right uh the choice to have a pregnancy to begin with, and another thing is on the idea of overpopulation , though it might sound cold statistically there is already a huge uh issue and a huge problem with overpopulation and poverty


first we like to recognise that most of such unwanted pregnancies are found in less educated and more impoverished uh societies , , the ban of abortion will only add on to these global issues that it's already much uh so problematic in its own


and just look at the to have a more realistic view of this is is that even with laws making abortion and uh illegal uh making abortion


illegal and making abortion banned it is inevitable that, there would be cases where there would this would just only shoot up the number of cases where women would decide to take on more risk uh


uh, filled and less safe hygienic and less hygienic options of carrying out this process in secret, and this will only add on even more problems and even more misery to both the individual and the society at large


and , ya I would say that on top of that , that, instead of having abortion uh being banned I would like to propose that abortion should be


that , the government or ya uh ruling party should focus more on education and focusing more on the reasons of to which why abortion should be the last option in all scenarios that


in especially in places where , uh there are more, there's they're suffering from poverty or just I mean third world countries that education should be enforced instead that


to , increase in the preventive measures instead of just setting uh a rule that would cause more harm, than it would bring about, benefits


and, ya so therefore I would like to conclude that , instead of putting in a law, that realistically would only push people in


extreme cases to, result in to subscribe to it , more riskier procedures , that , we should focus more on the preventive measures and how this should be done in a safe and less risky environment


thank you


not so the the point I was trying to make there was that , to if you are in because if you were in the in the point of view of a government setting down its laws that


they should take into their consideration that it is the most uh, that, looking at it realistically uh putting a ban would result in women, opting for high riskier a more high risk option of conducting abortion in secret and illegally which would bring about greater health issues to the individual ya


(mmhmm)


(mmhmm), (mmhmm)


uh debate topic one, uh yes


I cannot hear rachel, uh ya she is


uh yes, okay okay , to start off this discussion about whether animal lives should be as equally valued as human lives I would like to say that uh every living being on this


planet has equal right to the earth's resources and deserves to live their own lives and this has been the way since the beginning of time until one species uh decided to take over and this species is


known as homosapiens or humans and I would just like to list out, ways in which humans have exploited animals so, firstly for food


uh this is seen through the ruthless factory farming techniques where animals are like forced into, very unhygienic and cramped uh living conditions and basically forced to live in inhumane ways uh just to feed our population so one example would be the Foie-Gras which is


the the which is the french uh duck uh, delicacy where the animals are like force fed from, uh force fed from


like young and basically brutally killed just for their meat uh and another example of such uh exploitation of animals would be the shark fin soup where the


poachers hunt down these sharks and uh, mercilessly , cut off like these their fins and instead of, uh killing them they actually throw these animals limbless animals back into the ocean uh and leave them to die because these animals do not have basically their limbs to uh


navigate their way around anymore so, this is one of the ways where human cruelty towards and the, uh, neglect of animal lives have been shown and there are and not just in this field uh of food


providing food for the human population where the animal where animal lives have been devalued but in other areas such as uh, entertainments, for our own entertainment where uh circus animals are tortured and once again kept in unhygienic and cramped conditions which causes deterioration to their mental health


and another and another example would be like our typical zoos where we bring our children to to uh entertain them uh meanwhile the animals are kept in, uh solitude and captivity in fact


uh such, uh fiendish acts of uh human cruelty and examples of how animal lives have been, have not been equally valued as human lives is shown through this documentary known as the cove which uh


exposes how the horrific dolphin hunting in japan where herds of, innocent dolphins are basically, uh killed in atrocious ways just for their meat or just to keep them in captivity in entertainment parks such as sea world


to entertain us humans so in summary I feel that uh all of these examples have one thing in common and it is that they leave the animals in a cruel and painful state all of which will lead to their eventual death


and this further highlights how uh belittled animal lives are compared to humans and not to mention our destructive actions to the environment which has and will likely result in the extinction of uncountable animal species


so I would just like to cite one more example uh in these trying times where animals have finally come to I mean when humans have finally come to understand uh the torture that most of these animals are forced to endure is


the isolation due to the COVID nineteen virus so humans are now forced to stay at home and we finally get a taste of what being held captive uh in a never changing environment feels like so


this is similar to what animals in zoo circuses or even basically anywhere uh have to suffer animals in captivity have to suffer and, hopefully we have finally come to understand how, uh such isolation have uh negative and unhealthy effects on our mental health so


I believe that this is mother nature's way of allowing us to comprehend and truly empathise with the plight of animals and how their lives have been of little to no value to our human world


so my question is why should one species which is humans claim superiority over all the others I mean after all according to science humans are, also uh animals and it's just that we humans prefer to believe that we are at the top of the food chain which is not wrong but it doesn't make any make us any less human or any less animal


I believe that we are all beings on this planet and every being once again should be given the right to roam freely and live without restraint and control from others, and if we are so passionate in fighting for causes such as black lives matter or the recent like Yemen crisis then surely we


will possess the empathy to fight for the lives of animals as well and uh call for action against human cruelty uh animal cruelty sorry so, when we hashtag all lives matter on our social media pages uh I hope that this truly means all lives including animals uh matter the time is now and we must fight for the equality of


all lives for all beings ya, thank you


okay uh, thank you rachel so I understand your point of view , I will just and I would like to agree on your point about the case study and how when it comes to


protecting our own uh it is uh it is eminent wait it is expected for every being too, uh protect their own species however I would like to


uh, point out that the point your point on the the, religious , texts about how, across many different religions' texts they state that human lives are in a way superior to animals I would just like to say that


I believe therein lies the problem because these religious texts are, written by human, so I, I feel that obviously, then because of that humans would


right, ourselves in a way that, we are superior so, I, I do question the the validity of, is it validity of these


religious texts, ya and I would like to know, more, I would like to hear more from you about that and also on the point about how uh humans have, uh this other


element to them which is the, is it the spiritual can I confirm , rachel ya, uh and how like we can feel empathy or compassion and higher cognitive ability


I believe to just limit it to humans would also not, be, accurate as there have been examples of how uh, of relationship between animals such as pets the most well known would be dogs and cats and how


they do show this, they do share this uh, spiritual bond with their owners, so, I would also like to, uh question you on that point yup thank you


the religious texts, oh sorry uh the religious texts about how because it's written by humans so it's not, yeah


, , uh inferior , cognitively inferior


, is it


okay, okay, okay so uh thank you so to conclude


I think both of us both sides brought up equally valid points and we need to consider this, question from many different angles, socially religiously and scientifically ya in order to come to a conclusion okay


ya, uh, debate topic two


okay so uh this discussion is about, on the topic of change is always good and I'm speaking on behalf of the proposition so I would like to start off by saying that there there is a common saying that goes as such which is change is the only constant


change is a huge and necessary part of life uh, advocates for change believe that change is always good as it allows the world to constantly improve and move towards a better future


one example in which change has is in the case where change has led to innovation and improvements in life, and the desire to constantly improve and the willingness to embrace change in order to achieve better and to uh adapt to the changes in our


our our environment our external environment have , uh resulted in a proliferation of, innovations and inventions which has allowed, uh humanity to


progress in in leaps and bounds in terms of technology and quality of life , so, this can be seen through , like comparing


comparing in maybe like fifty years ago versus now where in fifty years ago , things such as uh your macbook or even your iphone , or travelling, uh as and when you like it


was it didn't sound as possible at as it is now it didn't sound as possible or as , ubiquitous as today where like the things such as the internet personal computers aeroplanes everything or are all possible and easily accessible and this is all


thanks to uh our, this is all thanks to our, willingness to embrace change and, so


recently researchers, at uh, the university in netherlands have reacted to anthropogenic, climate change by inducing


like, fake meat lab grown fake meat in large scale in order to save our planet so this again shows how change is good in that it provokes uh


improvements and the encourages uh better, in better betterments to our lives and allow us to constantly try and innovate, constantly try to innovate to make our lives better so change this uh attitude towards change has allowed society to continuously improve for the better instead of remaining stagnant


and also another point where change is good is when it allows people to be, more uh, accepting welcoming of new and unconventional ideas so for example


the oftentimes, like the ideas and traditions , are now, uh things of the past, and people consider it, uh backward


narrow minded ways of thinking, , and now with all this diversity and globalisation and and the rise of social media uh, things such as hashtag pride month the acceptance of the LGBTQ community or uh even if we wanna cite


uh recent events like, black lives matter were finally there is, a lot of social change a lot of acceptance towards uh all these, groups of people who used to be who used to be


normally , ostracized in the past have now all these situations have now changed due to the acceptance of new and unconventional ideas and I believe that is all thanks to, thanks to change ya so I would like to just say that in a world that is increasingly diverse and complex uh change has the potential to


create a more harmonious tolerant and progressive, peaceful world so that's why, on the proposition's stand we believe that change is always, good, yes thank you


okay okay uh thank you rachel for your, point and I would, firstly like to start off by uh agreeing with you on the on your point about how change


is actually a neutral term and that it it is only when it is a neutral term but in different context it can turn out to be disruptive, or uh productive and I believe that uh for your point on how in


especially in the field of governance or in, like, within the country itself we should always be, uh, anticipating change uh I would like to also agree on that I believe that , this


as we said change is the as I mentioned change is the only constant and as you mentioned change is, inevitable , we, it is not about what happens to us uh and how things it is not about what happens to us but more of how we


react to this change that will determine whether this change is good or bad, ya so, I would like to, agree with you on the fact that the statement about change is always good and how the term always is


it is an extreme stance, so yes I would like to acknowledge this point and , , your point on uh how