why not just make it legal and let the you know the women have the decision for example for example this is a I have my hair and this is on me so I had the decisions whether to keep it or cut it or perm it, because it's with me same as the baby baby is with the mother so the mother should have the right you know decide of course I believe that prior to that there should be some counselling and and and to make sure that


this is ultimately what the mother wants you know or really and she is going to bear the consequences that you know forever it could be a nightmare for her to say that you know holding the guilt but ultimately I think the decisions is not fall under the lawmaker a decision should be the mother herself


, and then another thing right a lot of women get pregnant is not by choice for example by rape right by rape uh there then if you say that abortion is illegal right then


she has to give birth to this child and keep staring at this child and and it keep it will keep reminding her about the you know the the the bad incidents you know the bad experience


I think abortion can be done in a very safe way that's why I was I say that this is a medical issue instead of uh uh uh uh uh the national you know err err law I will or even religious law err because is really about if you think of a a woman health


then it should be legal so that the woman can go through proper medical you know a process to and and it won't have it won't create you know unnecessary risks on women, so it it it should be legal and and and and being done by a legal doctor experience doctor


I I mean if you raise the child that is of your err rapers right


you know you you will have guilt you will have, if for example you raise a child of the your raper and then you will have you know uh very negative feeling towards the child because it it is like this is unwanted child this is unwanted child I don't even want to want, you you are created under a very you know unpleasant uh uh situation so in in terms that it will actually hurt back right the child and the mother because the mother are being bound you know with the child and keeps keep you know being bound by the bad experience


uh well I think because they are still a toddler so I think in terms of choice right, err I'm afraid it has to be with the parents just like when you are below eighteen or below sixteen you need your parents consensus to do something I think that fall in the line of of of that rules thumb of the err no rules of the thumb


so I I will say that instead of having you know the long suffering I think that we must it it it should end it I mean for for such, err err you know such situation or such scenario and then there's another thing like for example


, so for example a family already cannot uh uh come into a uh you know a family really cannot afford is struggling with life already and and they have another child


will totally you know break up the whole family


maybe in certain society but not in every society if you are in in in in in maybe in tier err tier one city you know such help could be you know err you can find such help but then what if


ya but you must have that means adoption is another way err err err aside abortion but ultimately the decision has to be with the mother, I felt it should not be in the uh uh uh in the way of like a law policy


ultimately the mother will have to choose I mean to abort or have it err adopted give err give birth to baby and and let it get adopted so I think that that decision should be with the mother and not with the err law policy again ya


, correct so back like you mentioned correctly humanity so humanity means is human rights, so when come to human rights like would would the women have the woman right to to decide on what to do with her body


but I think honestly for example if a if a if if for example if a woman is given a for example is a a given a child uh that she doesn't really want and end of the day these grievances is going to be with her


will she abused the children will she abused the child, and the whether the abused child end err in I mean uh after that will that will he or she become a problem in the society


, exactly so actually the mother should have a choice to decide whether to abort the child or keep the child and give up for either keep a child I mean there is three option


ah ya and there is three options uh abortion uh keep the child and and you know keep the child, you know keep the child means she keep she is keeping the child and going to to raise him or her and then better is to give up the the uh the baby for adoptions


but ultimately is still point back to the woman's decisions so I think the woman should be respected that means in the way respect of her err what she wants and what she wants to do with the you know baby in her the infant you know so


after she has to make a choice because the choice the consequences of the choice is not going to bear by the you know it's not going to bear by the lawmaker but is the you know is a personal consequences she that she will bear throughout her life till the death


so I will think that she the choice should stay with the woman to decide that what actions that she wants to do with the baby and totally uh and totally eliminating the options of abortion, err it should not be because like we have seen certain situations that you know really keeping the child is going to


to to to create a whole whole whole how to say a a bad consequences like yup


ya actually creating a law with just a strict law is it like abortion should be banned it should be avoid at all times it should be because imagine a fourteen years old or twelve years old err girl got raped and pregnant so you you you


does she is she won't have the I mean if you ask the parents to decide you said I read a lot uh abortion should be banned then the parents decided that oh this this life is precious you should give birth to it but having a twelve years old and fourteen years old girl to go through you know the motherhood I I mean is a bit is ya it's so is a bit


too too how to say too much for her to bear so ya that's why


okay what if what if ah ah, what if uh the baby is defect it it is not normal that means they have some issues can the parents give up the child for adoption


, ya , ya correct I think abortion really have to it should be based on medical based on individual err err err because we are individual like we always say we are individual we have our own mind our own lives our own experience to make a judgment


so err like I will say that of course uh like what you mentioned if is a medical reason I think there's no reasons why not to abort the baby unless the parents uh felt that they have enough support, to able to care for the uh this baby uh till you know uh till this baby is is err


err die then is okay but ultimately the decision should be back to the parents or back to the mother, err to decide or back to the doctor to decide whether abortion err should be going ahead or should not be but is never in terms of the you know law policy


it it it shouldn't be I always felt it shouldn't be ya it shouldn't be because we're individual right what would would would you want to let the law I I mean having abortion is not a a criminal is not a crime ah I did not steal I did not you know I'm not robbing other people's asset err


err the baby is in me err for example and then that it could be due to certain consequence if due to certain result that's why the baby is in me but end of the day I should have the rights that means that for example the the the mothers should have the rights, err or you know with the support of the err parents err with the support of the spouse able to make the decisions but it's never in the but it's never in the hand of law ya I still stand by


then that means that what if we have this and then those those ladies those young girls go to always err goes to go to you know neighborhood country and do illegal abortion oh


you can never stop right you can never stop there's always ways and means there's always ways and means for them if they really doesn't want there's ways and mean so instead of having them risk their life in oversea, I think we should have it done legally in singapore


okay thank you


part one debate topic one


thank you to the proposition for stating your point, , so today this house believes that technology creates more problems than benefits for society and as the opposition I believe that the benefits of technology in fact outweighs the problems that it creates


earlier the proposition has told you that, uh the use of, technology has in fact brought about cyber bullying deaths uh health problems like obesity


and how they are spending countless hours on the internet, because of technology however I believe that I I disagree with this point because again it boils down to time management and the person's way of life


if you have good time management and you have the resources to better manage your time and know that technology should not be your overwhelming meaning of life then, definitely technology will bring about more pure benefits


than such minor problems such as uh addiction because again these can be prevented by going through counselling time management and tapping on to resources that we currently have


as for my opposition, , as my opening statement I would like to say uh I would like to bring about a point, made across by marketing technology facts and statistics, four billion people in the world are connected to one another and there are over twenty five billion embedded and intelligent systems that are developed these are statistics based in twenty twenty


so I will be discussing some of my own points firstly what is technology technology by definition (ppc) is used, is using science or knowledge and putting it into practical use to solve problems or invent useful tools


let us narrow it down into the benefits that technology has for education in our society, technology has been truly beneficial in making classrooms more engaging and has provided us with numerous ways on how to teach and learn more effectively, my statement can be supported by BCTV dot org that agreed with this point saying that technology has made learning more interactive and collaborative while helping people engaged better with what they are learning learning is not just restricted to pen paper and textbooks


because we can delve into virtual stimulations, interactive videos and make use of our own visual sensors to better understand lessons, technology is also very diverse it can range from just using the internet to using virtual reality software


no matter the age group and the financial constraint in educational institutions, there will always be ways to make use of technology to provide a more meaningful and effective way of learning for students you don't have to splurge thousands of dollars on creating an interactive video function


or to provide tablets to classrooms if the institute has sufficient funds by all means they can go into using virtual reality for a more hands-on experience in learning in conclusion technology in education is truly beneficial to people of all ages and has far more benefits than mere problems thank you


I would like to beg to differ uh based on the, uh, proposition bringing up about COVID nineteen, and how technology has reduced man to man interactions, and the


the interactions basically within uh physical human beings using COVID nineteen this has actually helped, enhance interactions, despite barriers that we currently have such as being restricted to five people at a time when you're outside and also travelling so for example when we have businessman who once had to travel


overseas in order to meet their clients and what not we have the convenience of online means through Skype Zoom and what not and this has definitely brought about more benefits because we skip the hassle and the risk of contracting COVID nineteen


through online telecommunicating, I would like to move on to my second argument, which will be regards to technology in the healthcare sector, we are now faced with industry four point O which is the fourth industrial revolution with the enhancement and development of the internet of things or the IIOT our healthcare sector is boosted and far more effective than it was once ever before


in industry four point o and the internet of things we use technologies and smart machines integrated in the medical field to create software and devices that are highly customised as per patient requirements and this is well mentioned by science direct dot com


patients are provided with more constant access to their health concerns and monitoring for example during this COVID nineteen period we have the development of telehealth telecommunication and telemedicine, basically we are able to get consultation from doctors in the in the comforts of our own home


a good example of this will be doctor anywhere whereby they provide patients with virtual consultation as well as looking into chronic disease management programmes for those with chronic chronic illnesses it is extremely convenient as you will be able to be connected to a doctor in less than five minutes


and your medication will be delivered to your doorstep within three hours you can also skip the hassle of booking an appointment and waiting in line for your medication at the clinic moreover you can also protect yourself from any unnecessary contact, with potentially positive COVID nineteen patients in the clinic with that being said I strongly wish to convince you that technology is not about scary robots meaning to take over and rule the world there are countless benefits that it brings about to our society especially in the education and healthcare thank you


thank you proposition for your points there are quite a few points brought up that I would like to rebuke against firstly will be when discussing about ah the risks of, radioactive uh activities


such as X-ray CT scans why not I believe that, in fact yes, uh radioactive waves and what not will, increase your risk of getting cancer but this is with extensive exposure


CT scans will not, be happening every single appointment when a patient goes in and, the healthcare sector will definitely know the procedures as to how often a patient can be exposed to radioactive rays and


ya so overall it's a low risk, for that, secondly regarding the insulin pumps, technology is not, foolproof it's not completely foolproof, and, same goes with humans we're not completely void of mistakes


regarding the insulin pump if it glitches yes we may enter hyperglycemia, but, uh it it, using an insulin pump makes it more convenient and it's more effective


for nurses to be going for to to be doing that rather than having to attend to patients who require constant uptake of insulin, as, as in this competitive and changing world there are far more diseases and


biological discoveries that are being made, so, our priorities will be all over the place especially for nurses we have countless other stuff that we need to take care of rather than other stuff like for example insulin that can be leveraged by technology and helping it to be more effective and convenient for these patients


yup so with that being said I believe that technology brings about more benefits for society but it definitely does not strip clean off the downsides again , for those who have been


uh stripped of their jobs because of the replacement of robot technology like for example the waiters and waitresses in japan, , it comes down into coming into the category of how to stay relevant in this changing society which is something that singapore is also focusing on knowing that


in this industry four-point-o there will be development of more smart technologies that will replace jobs so by staying by taking courses on how to stay relevant in this changing society these people will not be forever jobless they can delve into other jobs that are similar but just with new skillsets they have learnt


ya, that concludes my points


point my main concluding point to that would basically be that, yes it differs per country, and, different countries would have different, stuff that they would focus on to develop their country


so for example in singapore we are the one of the top few technology industrial revolution , top, technology users, and most of our most of the global, innovations in technology comes from singapore


this is because we have the sufficient funds to provide, to be focusing more onto how we can stay relevant using technology but for example indonesia they may have a different set of they may have a different focus on what their country needs


so, I would say that maybe they would have technology advancements but it won't be as complex and as, uh in a sense life changing and job overtaking in singapore or in japan whereby we have the sufficient funds so basically what I'm trying to say is that in indonesia they won't they probably won't even be thinking of


using their funds to replace certain machineries and whatnot that they have in health care or, in F&B like the waiters and waitresses so I feel like there wouldn't be that much of a problem for those in these


lower income areas


part two debate topic two


thank you proposition for your points, firstly, uh this house believes that scientific research should be constrained by ethical concerns as the opposition I disagree with the statement, earlier the proposition has told you that stem cell research has in fact brought about numerous benefits to humans and that in totality scientific research should


not be constrained by ethical concerns however I would like to counter this with a statement saying that, human life begins at conception, and therefore the embryo itself is already the development of a person this is stem cell research is something that has been widely debated and talked upon for very long and I believe that I stay through with my point that


human life begins at conception and it is, as good as killing a child for the benefits of science which I think is completely immoral and unethical, I would like to begin with my opening statement, imagine someone taking recognition for your efforts that were entirely yours


and did not credit to you then getting rewarded to monetary means without giving you the slightest bit of compensatory payment how frustrating and demoralising would that be, my first argument uh my first argument pertains biopiracy the appropriation by foreign entities such as corporations and governments without compensatory payment


in nineteen ninety seven india forced the US patent and trademark office to revoke the patent regarding use of turmeric in medicinal means, indian council of scientific and industrial research argued that turmeric had in fact been use for centuries by their people for wound healing and this lead to the novelty uh criteria that is actually required for patenting


during this long battle, both parties have had multiple arguments and , india was backed up with sanskrit documents that were dated back for thousands of years to prove their point that turmeric had been used by their community for the longest time and that US should not be taking credit for it


this is one great example of how ethical concerns which uh includes the respect for intellectual properties, becomes completely neglected just for the sake of scientific research and recognition scientists are constantly on the hunt for new bioresources joined on to local people's traditional knowledge about the properties of compounds be it chemical plants et cetera


when they have and when they have their mindset specifically on the target of finding these new bioresources human ethical concerns will just end up being neglected, this is where they don't bother asking for permission from locals because they're too focused on the recognition of the newly discovered bioresource


in summary getting credits for a long renowned practice that's not yours is itself unethical worse yet, not providing even compensatory payment


thank you proposition, regarding your first question that you, ask, whether I believe that, scientific research should be constrained by uh should not be constrained by ethical concerns as the opposition my points in argument are based on the values that scientific research should be constrained by ethical concerns so in fact I agree that


it should be restricted to ethical concerns, , my second argument will be regarding clinical trials, by definition clinical trials are any research study that prospectively assigns participants either humans or animal subjects to health related interventions in order to evaluate the effects of health outcomes


such intervention include uh biological products procedures behavioural treatments etc, and the science the centre of research on multinational corporations also known as SOMO has given an in depth run through of some unethical clinical trials in US and europe


one example would be the viral therapy also known as ART trials that uh took place in uganda zimbabwe from two thousand and three to two thousand and six, the main issue with this was that the trial was interrupted


and all the patients in the original ART trial were switched to a different form of therapy known as continuous therapy because apparently they had a greater risk uh they they had a greater rate of clinical HIV related diseases, rather than in ART whereby the original diseases that were


meant to have uh they were meant to be tested for uh STIs this raised the red flag already because , because there were high numbers of fatalities from the original group of participants and by interrupting the trial by changing the form of therapy in the patients more of them are dying and more of them were having their health deteriorate


uh they when they take the risk of trying to take the participants that were put on CT uh continuous therapy back onto ART this was extremely dangerous and aside from that, they were there were also insufficient arrangements for the post trial treatment access for those who made through the trials healthily


from start to end this was a massive failure uh two components of ethical trials will breach here, firstly switching the form of therapy of the trial when they should have just start to the main objective and secondly neglecting the post trial treatment process this proves to be entirely inhumane and simply ensuring


that before the clinical trials were meant to take place the procedures are all planned out and it's not that hard, countless other clinical trials across the world have been made successful with proper planning and execution and by being constrained to ethical concerns we can still make a great biological discovery and developments in healthcare


to conclude, ethical concerns are basically a basic respect to science and its discoveries thank you for listening to my views


thank you uh proposition, , firstly I would like to talk about, , the success rate of the clinical trials which I mentioned, , only uh three quarters of the patients that


went through it were the ones who had their health deteriorating ended that had passed on only one quarter of the people that were apparently healthy after the trials, were neglected usually the processes of clinical trials is that they have multiple phases and there has to be a follow-up on these patients who have made through the trials uh and are apparently deemed healthy they may still have underlying conditions and


basically it's just, it just has to be a natural process that when you're planning for a clinical trial you follow up from phase one all the way to the last phase, and it is not that hard to just simply check up on the patients if they have


any other underlying problems after the trial has ended this will affect your scientific breakthrough and discovery because if, your patients who do come out of the trial healthy and they still have underlying problems and you don't have the post trial treatment


and you released this drug how sure are you that, the drug will still be successful in the market, how sure are you that , through years of clinical testing, your drug will be,


top in the market or will be sold to many hospitals and whatnot for use because if you do not have your simple post-trial treatment access, you may be wasting all your time through these years during the clinical trials only to develop a drug that has adverse effects


that are brought upon these apparently healthy patients from the clinical trials, secondly regarding the black market, , black market itself is unethical and yes you do help people by donating organs and whatnot but again it boils down to the healthcare policy you can donate you can sell your organs


on the black market in order to benefit someone err for health care but, in that area will health care accept this organ from the black market knowing that it's from the black market which is already unethical this person who needs help and needs uh cheaper organ donation


would probably be post with more fines and other penalties because they have purchased it from the black market so it's not just the matter of healthcare it's also a matter of, the entire legal system yup so uh that brings about my second uh so that basically concludes my points


thank you proposition for your points, , this your entire argument was based on CRISPR technology and uh from what I know CRISPR cas nine is actually very very specific and it can actually create a mutation that is found elsewhere and the genome and it's it's also known as the off target modifications


so off target effects are can are are happening by random and they can influence other genes or regions of the genome to malfunction so with that being said you also mentioned about illegal CRISPR,


my main concern is, were did the healthcare system not provide any other programmes or treatments, that are, found valid and that can be carried out in uh hospitals and whatnot to the point where the guy has to carry out his own illegal CRISPR so I'm sure in china there are systems that are held in place for let's say people of lower incomes to still go through treatments


that will help them with HIV and whatnot, and it is not necessary to to carry out your own illegal CRISPR and that that's my main concern , lastly I would like to mention also that


there are countless other ethical concerns such as animal testing especially for makeup, there there's always this debate on guinea pig testing and whatnot for makeup and I believe that, there's in this changing world with innovations in place there are so many other means of developing skincare and makeup whatnot


ethically using our own innovations and creating new types of products that do not have to be tested on animals and they can just be tested ethically on let's say human participants voluntarily


thank you that's all the points I have for opposition


part three debate topic three


thank you proposition for your points, this house believes that marijuana should be legalised and as opposition I refute this statement, earlier the proposition has told you that there are no death, deaths but, there are no deaths when consuming


uh, when overdosing on, marijuana, however have you thought about the social effects and the mental effects brought about marijuana, who knows if these social effects such as, been neglected into society because of your once addiction with marijuana


or having your family not to accept you because, you are spending most of your money on marijuana, what if these social effects and not feeling accepted by society lead you to death because you simply give up and it takes toll on your mental health


with that, I would like to, bring out my first point, so according to the substance abuse and mental health services administration approximately one in ten people who use marijuana will become addicted and when they start before the age eighteen the rate of addiction rises to one in six


countless articles by health officials emphasise greatly on the downsides of marijuana and its risks and effects, my first argument will focus on the main and obvious downside of marijuana which is addiction as mentioned by the national institute on drug abuse marijuana can lead to disorders associated with dependence whereby a person will feel withdrawal symptoms when they do not take the drug


frequent users of marijuana report to be irritable have mood and sleeping difficulties decreased appetite et cetera, one will develop a dependence to marijuana when the brain adapts to the large amounts of the drug taken by reducing production of and sensitivity to its own neural transmitters addiction itself can lead to far more downsides such as mentioned earlier


social effects physical effects mental effects and the list goes on for example addiction can lead to losing your relationships with your friends and family, I would like you to imagine being a father to a young child as you battle your addiction with marijuana and your child has to witness your downward spiral your child will feel emotionally and physically neglected and unsafe


monkey see monkey do when they grow up the chances of them following your footsteps are far greater than those who are not exposed to having a having a family with addiction issues, thank you


thank you proposition for your points, , firstly I would like to, I will make a comment on their remark regarding the revenue for marijuana yes the revenue, uh, I mean the revenue brought upon with legalising marijuana


I agree that yes it will bring you more revenue but, will it be, a positive kind of revenue yes you are generating good revenue and whatnot but how much of that will actually be used for rehabilitation and other services needed for these people who may have


brought about addiction from marijuana, yes you can legalise such addictive substances, but, what about your overall image of your own country, you may be rich compared to other countries


but, in terms of your community, if your community is just going to be a bunch of, druggies who are addicted and, who have no purpose in life other than getting high on weed what's the point if


your own community is going to be like that what was the point of having, high revenue if your community is just going to flop, there is no there is no reason why any other countries will want to invest in your countries markets and whatnot because of how stale and how negative your community is


, with that I'll be talking about my second argument building on to my previous argument I would like to emphasise on the medical side of marijuana, there is a lack of evidence for the therapeutic benefits of marijuana in medicine


first, it is essential to understand what exactly medical uh medical marijuana is so medical marijuana implies that uh marijuana is like any other medication prescribed by a physician, and in the US, commercially available drugs will go through clinical trials to evaluate the safety and efficacy


however when we talk about medical marijuana there has only been one randomised and double-blind clinical trial that has evaluated the efficacy of marijuana, yes it proved that marijuana was superior to a placebo but was inferior to other drugs that for example treated nausea


as reviewed by the CC uh Cochrane collaboration, there is insufficient evidence to support that the use of medical marijuana for multiple indications in relation to arthritis dementia and all that


so with the lack of evidence in anything that we do let's say when we're talking in the context of medical marijuana, or with or evidence to prove that let's say drinking water helps clear your skin from acne, how can we confirm the effectiveness and the safety of a drug and in this case marijuana with that being said I feel that marijuana should in no means be legalised because of the vast downsides that overweigh the benefits however few


thank you proposition for your points, with the points mentioned I would like to rebut to any oopposal that you have made, I would like to continue on with giving my further arguments, based on the notion that marijuana should not be legalised


firstly earlier you mentioned about THC, however, THC will mess with your balance, literally and figuratively THC will mess with the areas in your brain like the cerebellum and basal ganglia which actually helps to regulate your balance your posture your coordination and your reaction time


with these brain areas being disturbed the user will have a harder time walking talking correctly and become more clumsy and overall this will, affect your ability to drive I don't see the difference between these coordination issues as compared to other substances like alcohol I don't see how one is more dangerous than the other because


based on scientific research I feel that once a coordination is off of course you will be, getting into more accidents and whatnot, and aside from that aside from talking about the safety I would also like to tap on to talking about mental health


cannabis may increase the risk of depression despite that yes marijuana can cause uh can increase the risk of uh depression long term, smoking marijuana will bring about lots of brain issues and downfalls in the way your brain once used to


work, for example you will have a sharp decline in your serotonin which increases your risk of depression and this brings about other mental health issues such as anxiety panic fear and distrust


and, as seen before in the portrayals of how marijuana has affected society we see these people as irritable irritable and, overall anxious about everything this can affect, them when they go on to finding jobs let's say like mentioned earlier uh if people start taking marijuana before the age of eighteen their rate of addiction rises to one in six without being said and brought upon the context of finding jobs


how sure are we that these people will be beneficial to our society if they cannot find a job they are financially unstable and they are not contributing to the society positively at all because the country has to end up finding giving them uh avenues to combat their


their addiction, job prospecting in this day and age whereby uh we are constantly facing change and everything is becoming more competitive and challenging, how can we still make these people relevant in our society if all they are going to do is take drugs and be addicted because again rehabilitation is not hundred percent foolproof there may be people who undergo rehabilitation but come out


still with the mindset that they need and they live and breathe marijuana and so they end up falling into this endless cycle there will always be this cluster of people, that will just spiral back down into their addiction and it is going to be a major struggle in countries trying to tackle this group of people who


are trying to not be addicted and, the country trying to find ways for them to still be relevant in the country while the country has other bigger things to talk about like let's say developing technologies, and just being relevant in this workforce so there really is a lot of downsides as to what marijuana brings because marijuana


and its addiction can lead on to so many other aspects in people's lives


thank you proposition for your points, , I rebut to any opposes being made I would just like to strongly emphasise on the point that there is a lack of research between weed and, alcohol but more so we know a lot more about alcohol than we know about weed because of how recent it is that there's all these debates about legalising weed


research now is, research recently is so prevalent but there's no long term studies for it which is what we need in order to substantiate whether weed is really, should be really allowed for, sales thank you


part one debate topic one, so our statement is that technology creates more problem than benefit for the society one such evidence will be used in adolescence and


teenagers being glued to their phone literally almost for hours a day some are even spend up to a few hours like ten hours or even more, furthermore, you can see there are more cases of cyberbully as compared to the past for example if you were to compare our current generation with twenty ten you will see that there's actually a lot more online cases of cyberbullying people bullying others online and as a result there was quite a lot of deaths happening due to all these kind of cyberbullying


another point that I would like to state, how technology create more problem than benefit for the society would be not only teenagers being glued to their phones but at the same time computers, you might know or might not know that


there have been a lot of computer clubs in other countries such as taiwan and china where many of them actually spend tens, and twenty even twenty hours on the laptop where they have a club especially just for them to play their games furthermore it has been a concern for china especially where


a lot of the teens are all in the computer clubs playing computers and not studying, further, other than that I would like to add on that there's also been a lot of cases where teenagers are died dying due to spending too much time on their computer not to even mention the fact that obesity can be a problem where they are gaining weight


due to low amounts of activity, which is why I think that technology creates more problem than benefits for the society


uh so I would also like to add on other than what the opposition said that, she feels that in a way the classroom interactions has been enhanced due to technology, however I would beg to differ so this is because for example for our country situation where we are facing COVID nineteen


so, a part of polytechnic learning I believe is now currently under home-based kind of learning so basically it's where that you literally interact with your classmates and your lecturers, through your phone or your computer screen hence this is what I believe that it will actually cause less human interaction as per compared to the traditional way of learning this is because of the fact that you are literally just seeing your friends across the computer and


you might not even have time to meet up with them, if you were talking about, during the circuit breaker period where we're not allowed to meet one another as of now also I would like to add on that, one way that I think that technology has created more problem than benefit for the society will be cheating this is because nowadays is if people have assignment online can just simply do a search copy and paste the results


and submit it in, this would in this will then cause gradings was uh grading of results to be affected as some students would just put in their pure work but others can just literally leech off the internet


after leeching off the internet they will just submit it in and they may even get the same grade as someone who work, harder than them for that grade, of course I believe that there are, other resources available such as Turnitin which should combat plagiarism but in other less developed countries I believe that


cheating is still a problem not only in the means of physical but in the means of, virtual virtual means too, also I would like to, uh counter, reflect on the point that the opposition admits earlier which is about how it can enhance


interaction from people around the world, even though I agree that it will enhance interactions of one another through the world such as having to Skype one another through FaceTime, are or other type of resources available, however I still feel like


it still lacks, the kind of, man to man interaction as we're just seeing your friends on your phones, that's my point for why I feel like technology create more problem than benefit for the society


with regards to what the opposition had said earlier regarding the medical field I would like to rebut on it because, in my opinion, technology still create more problem than benefit for the society be in the medical field or the general society this is because like what uh the opposition have mentioned earlier


there are current more advanced therapy compared to in the future compared to in the past sorry such as radiation therapy and CT scans however, the longer that one is exposed to CT scans and radiotherapy it will actually caused them


to have certain adverse effects such as, having cancer where CT scan is known to be carcinogenic not to even mention about x-ray where every time one undergoes x-ray or has exposure to x-ray some of your cells will die, hence this is one of the reasons why I think that radiation therapy or CT scans in general is a


bad it's a bad, it's a bad thing rather than a benefit for the society or in your case our medical field, furthermore I'd like to explain on that, as the years advanced there are more things being invented for patients such as insulin pumps


however could you imagine if the insulin pump actually, has undergoes a failure mechanical failure and dispenses more insulin that you should what will happen, one will literally fall into hyperglycemia


what will happen if one has hyperglycemia one might usually die suffered bit nerve damage and not to even mention things such as restlessness seizures and brain damages much more, hence due to technology advance more people has started to rely on all these kind of machines which


risk opens a risk of them having to suffer malfunctions, and due to this extreme reliability, they might be, far more, overwhelming concern and danger as per compared to


in the past where people will just inject insulin simply through a needle and exchange which was much more safer than what I will say compared to a overdosage of insulin which could potentially damaged someone's health and even put one's health into danger, along with that I would like to say that there has been a shortage of jobs due to technology


where it have it can be seen all around us where robots are starting to replace us for example if you're to go to some of the cafes in japan you can see that they are actually using robots robot waiters or waitresses, to serve food and this actually replaces the job of a waiter and a waitress so where would all these


people who are working originally go to now since that their job have been replaced by robot, with that I pass on to the opposition


okay uh to I, referred on what the opposition said earlier for example you mentioned that patients have lesser exposure to x-ray because they have a regular timing that they have to follow


am I right to say so however have you thought of the nurses who are attending the patients, would they have a routine of when they can enter the x-ray machine, or the room in general I believe not so, and hence I would like to protect the danger of


having nurses or in general medical field, inside the x-ray and hence why technology creates more problem than benefit for the society also insulin pump is actually connected to the patient and it it automatically distributes the medicine by itself, furthermore diabetic patients can actually pump insulin into their body themselves


while they are being taught by a nurse or anyone in the medical field sector and hence I believe that there's not so much attention required to pay to people with diabetes where they can learn how to inject themselves with insulin or even so the insulin pumps like what you have mentioned earlier


also, you had mentioned that one can learn more skillsets to in order to upgrade themselves in a way, for current that uh for current society due to the advanced in technology however what about the country that are poor, or rather third world countries like indonesia would they have


would the government give them the amount of skillsets that they need, for them to keep up with the times which of course I don't think so, with that I pass to the opposition


part two debate topic two, scientific research should not be constrained by ethical concerns


one of the few examples that I would like to list out regarding why scientific research should not be constrained by ethical concerns are due to the following factors for example we have been making many, breakthroughs such as using stem cells to grow artificial human organs where they could potentially be used for patients who are having organ failure such as lungs


heart or many more other organs that qwill simply fail on us, with that being said, there've been several ethical concerns raised over that where people think that it's, immoral or not right to


do so by replacing, someone's organ who has been, undergoing so much damage or it has simply failed on them with another perfectly working organ just that it was made from stem cells with that being said so why do we on the other hand allow


people to transplant transplant live organs from a live donor, but not, an organ which have been raised from a stem cell, just think of it having one life for another in the terms of a heart transplant comparing


saving a life without need without requiring the need to kill another life for it furthermore, people would think that, it is unethical to prolong one life by, going on to research such as lengthening


but, why are people trying to prolong their life by going undergo undergoing surgeries, if, they don't want to prolong their life but yet on the other hand, they undergo surgeries to save their life so that they can live a little bit longer


with that I pass to the opposition


regarding to what the, opposition had said, with the previous points I would like to mention that, in your sense that embryonic stem cells are unethical but what about using adult stem cells or umbilical cord stem cells which


are not, with acquired through the killing of one life to save another, with that I post a question back to the opposition, furthermore I would like to say that, do you think that, we should let scientific research be held back by ethical concerns


over the years, science has made such a great breakthrough, and, it has all along been ethical concern for some who believe that we should not be even we should not even be dwelling into the field of science because that's not what that


humans are originally need to do, also in the past people in jail were forced to use for drug testing however that led us to where we are now, for example having anti cancer drugs, just to treat HIV do you think that many of those patients were actually voluntarily used I believe not in certain countries


people in the jail are actually being used for drug testing, and some of them lead to breakthroughs, to what we in those developed countries can have now so should we let ethical concerns hold us back as we explore more into the field of science where we can find more such as even like cloning even though some may think that cloning is


unethical but, just at the thought of it, having to clone one, for the harvesting of organs where you could use, the set of organs from your clone to save yourself, will that be selfish


will that be unethical, with that I post a question back to the opposition


with regard to what the opposition have mentioned earlier I would like to post a question however with the research that you have stated


earlier was there a breakthrough instead, like what you had said, if correct me feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but, you mentioned that some of them have managed to pass through the clinical trials, so was that eventually a breakthrough to that and if there was a breakthrough


do you think that scientific research should be constrained by ethical concerns in that mean because, if there wasn't such a testing in the start would there be a breakthrough, and, without that would there be further scientific research being done


also I would like to post a point, with that regarding what the opposition I mentioned earlier about, black market having organ tradings, with one one might feel that it's actually unethical for one to sell their organs


in exchange for money or whatsoever benefits there might be however, through the selling of one's organs such as maybe a part of your liver to another person you might even uh you might be essentially savings saving another person life even though you're doing doing it for the monetary benefit and not


out of the good will that, you are giving it because you want to but rather because, you are giving the money because you need it, with that I pass a question back to the opposition where, I feel that scientific research should not be constrained by ethical concerns


with reference to what the opposition had said earlier I would also like to mention one point, recently there's been a breakthrough known as CRISPR gene editing, so what does this essentially does essentially it modify our gene in our body where we have where we know that we have millions and thousands of genes inside our body so CRISPR actually forms a


forms a cascade with cas nine where it will, empty the sequence in your genes, in recent years there was a breakthrough by a team in china where they're successfully radicated


HIV gene from, monkeys so this monkey was found with HIV and through CRISPR editing, they actually managed to in a way, edit the the HIV gene out of the person's body


allowing them to be allowing the monkey to be HIV free with reference to that I have meant to say monkey at all times and not, human that was my mistake also, recently a man in china was, arrested for trying to


perform CRISPR gene editing on his child where his wife was diagnosed with HIV, as the wife was diagnosed with HIV and hence there is a huge chance that, HIV will be passed on from the mother to the foetus


so the man tried to, perform CRISPR gene editing, with the hopes that his child will not have HIV, because, which parent would actually want their child to have HIV however his acts


were, refuted by the council, and rejected due to ethical concerns, however I would like to ask you some point of that just think of it, having a perfectly, normal child versus a child


who is born with HIV, should you really have ethical concerns, in order to, you know just because of your concerns you shouldn't let one to perform CRISPR gene editing to in a way make


the child's life much better, having a higher quality of life, with that I pass the question back to the opposition


part three debate topic three, starting marijuana should be legalised so what is marijuana, it is normally known as cannabis or rather more frequently known as weed so


what is weed used for, it's normally used for medicinal recreation purposes around the world and it gets its psychoactive properties from tetrahydrocannabinol known as THC it is one of the compounds known


in the plant, so there's a couple of ways that you can take weed you can can smoke it directly vaporise it or you can eat foods that are infused with it, which has been consumed early since, a thousand BC according to mercy wellness dot com


so, marijuana has gotten a bad reputation over the years and many people consider it as a drug that is bad because, it does nothing more than just get one high however, few, many of the few understands what weed actually does


with that, I agree that marijuana should be legalised one example is that no deaths have been reported, due to weed overdose so contradictory to what many have believed that


uh, weed overdose can kill a person however, it is not true, recent studies have shown that a person would have to consume twenty thousand times to forty thousand times the amount of THC known as also before I've mentioned earlier tetrahydrocannabinol


to die due to an overdose and hence I believe today not a single account of death have been, accounted due to the death of marijuana because I don't think anyone would consume twenty thousand to forty thousand times the normal amount of THC


of smoke that much amount of uh weed in a simply in the first place, with that I would like to also add on that is much safer than many legalised drugs for example, there was a study conducted by a, by a team of drug experts in the UK which I found that weed has lesser side effects


as for compared to many of the popular drugs they see out there for example like paracetamol and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs so researchers have found that the combined health risks posed by weed are much more lower associated with alcohol or tobacco consumption which are allowed


even though they are not legalised drugs, while alcohol is the direct or indirect, cause of thousands of death around the year, however there are no recorded cases of death from weed and hence, I believe that weed should be legalised


due to that, with that I pass on to the opposition


with regards to what the opposition had mentioned earlier, I'd like to raise a counter point, weed is not as addictive as many think, contradictory to what you have said, it is not true that weed is


like trying weed once you get you hooked to the substance or other substances, for example a study found that weed dependence is only about nine to ten percent in adults on the other hand cocaine and heroin, gets about twenty to twenty five percent of their users addicted respectively with that been said I would like to mention the most


addictive substance which is tobacco, why is tobacco legalised but on the other hand weed is not legalised when it has so much lesser side effects compared to tobacco and it's not as addictive as it is, furthermore


weed has uh cannabis can help with insomnia, so there are many different type of strains of weed such as blackberry kush granddaddy purple or other types of strains of weed which has shown promise in treating sleep disorders, so there was a study conducted by the national cancer institute which has respondents participating reporting that they have been sleeping more peacefully after ingesting a cannabis plant extract spray with that being said


imagine having a substance that could help you sleep better at night and having so much lesser side effects, other than uh with contrast to legalised substances such as maybe melatonin where people could overdose of melatonin and eventually


even die, also I would like to add that with legalising of weed there will be more revenue for the government, a study conducted in twenty seventeen found that legalising weed at the federal level that year would have resulted in a generation of one


one hundred and thirty one hundred and thirty eight million in tax revenue to be collected between twenty seventeen to twenty twenty five however, as what we have known throughout the whole year, the estimated has fallen due to COVID-nineteen


however with that being said, the government will still be able to generate an average of ten billion plus dollars a year imagine what would one could do with the amount with the extra ten billion dollar for the government they could have done so much more such as improving the country's economic


technology technological advances or even for the people itself with that I pass a question back to the opposition


iterate on my stance once again, previously I've mentioned that, only nine to ten percent of, marijuana users experience addiction


so, I don't think you'll be quite right in that sense to thinking that a huge amount of citizens in your country as a government would be addicted with, depend uh dependency on weed, with that being said I would like to also post a question back to opposition why on the other hand alcohol and cigarettes are legal


when they posed much more adverse side effects, as per compared to weed for example, according to the CDC alcohol overdose nearly cused twenty five thousand death in twenty thirteen, and contributed nearly sixteen thousand deaths from liver disease alcohol-related crimes resulted in two point two million arrests in twenty twelve


cigarettes are just as bad not even better than alcohol causing nearly five hundred thousand deaths in the united states per year with medical bills approaching hundred forty billion per year, hence with that being said, and


reenforcing on what I've said earlier that marijuana, hasn't have any death-related caused due to it, so why is alcohol and cigarettes legalised, why, marijuana which is prone to have therapeutic effects for example with one of the cases that you have stated earlier


not being legalised but alcohol and cigarettes are being legalised when they have no therapeutic effects at all with that I pass the question back to opposition


with reference to what the opposition said earlier you mentioned about weed addiction and having to help them, what about alcohol uh alcohol tobacco addiction, you see, all around you how many tobacco centres are there there's even a hotline for


national smoking agency where they will help others to smoke to quit smoking but does it work so if you were to based on that wouldn't people who are addicted to smoking be helpless zombies, or addicted to just smoking


and do nothing for the great of society is that what I trying to say with that, I ask question back to the opposition, furthermore I would like to add on that, should normally strains of cannabis can have as little up as zero point three percent of THC by weight which is also known as hemp for that strain so in order for one to experience those effects of THC that you have mentioned earlier


I doubt that one would be even smoking that much amount of hemp, in order to achieve those results where they would feel, uh inadequate hand-eye coordination, posture imbalance and much more that you had said earlier with that I would also like to add on to a point where


through legalising weed you can create millions of jobs, for example weed legalisation will increase the demand for professionals who can coordinate with farmers processors retailers or even distributors in this case legalisation will also benefit lenders


builders who who specialise in develop developing retail units and players in the other industry that can cater to the cannabis industry hence, think of the amount of jobs that can be created due to legalising weed


just imagine how much more income it'll give and build up to the country not only through legalising weep for the government and the taxes that they get from the legalising of weed but at the same time for the citizens too having a much more amount of work available to them


so why should we not legalise marijuana with that I pass question back to the opposition


part one debate topic one


thank you Boon I hear you however I represent the opposition and so I believe that sex sex work should not be legal, first let me address your points and then after that uh I'll elaborate on more points as well firstly you mentioned about the history and what has happened in the past well uh what happened


happened in the past is a reference for for us but of course it doesn't, it may not necessarily mean what has happened in the past is, wrong or right or correct and of course it would it could has just been under that circumstances at that point of time that it was decided but it doesn't mean it is correct and is applicable now because


and that's that's one and second is of course uh at a point of time it was a very different environment , and uh they are the the people, err in a foreign land and so they may have their own different needs and uh and different considerations and requirements and of course


they have they may have some super superior called uh concept of notion and therefore that they they can have any laws or rules that they want but of course in today's environment and society run in a different, uh legal and primer ens environment where everyone is uh mainly in their own home and homelands


and so it's in natural environment of course then it would be a very different uh situation altogether, alright so so that that the argument of the the british and the uh the police and whatever that, they it it's not not really relevant in today's context and argument that that it doesn't really show that it should be illegal sex work should be legal


the second point is that people who have sexual needs for example disabled people well , of course I'll think sexual needs is a instinct of humans for humans and it's because of natural or or how we are born and built uh uh the thing I do not deny that but of course we need to see uh whether that the


is a reason for making it legal or what if I say I have, a need to err, err, kill people of then should killing people being made legal so so of course everyone has a sexual need but


it's just a different extent of course some people may want to kill some people but have they have different extent as well , so I understand because sexual need is is inborn and in built so some people may have a strong desire some people may have a less desire but it doesn't really mean that is uh is not as strong argument for making sex work legal they can always get a girlfriend get a wife or get a boyfriend get a husband and and


fulfill up the needs from that perspective, right all there on uh various other uh legal means I mean they can have friends who, who who can of who can satisfy their needs just because they are friends or for uh whatever reason right


so so that that may not really justify it it and for disabled people well I see the point that is very unfortunate for some of them, but the question is I think, they should be the minority and so I'm looking at law making sex work legal for minority is is a bits uh strange as in although we want to be more inclusive and cater to everyone but seems a bit strange because their most urgent need should be their living


their uh ability to work and sustain and provide for themselves , and probably our sexual needs would probably be one of the last uh, concern on the top of their mind so I think that that would not be a very strong case of that and the last point that you mentioned regarding the moral values have shifted and people have never gone out of sexual work of course that's because it's a a human instinct I understand that but


that doesn't mean that it should be illegal because , that of all the various reasons associated with sex work so let me go on to some of the key points some I ash uh uh and we are running out of time uh okay so I'm just just go through some of my key points one is


sex work should not be legal because the key thing is one the people doing offering the sex work may not have been voluntarily doing it from the start, start so if we just need to go back a step back and think of how did these sex workers come about most of the time they were coerced


forced to doing into a sex work by for example uh young girls or young boys being kidnapped by kidnappers or traffickers and forced to do this since young and if they were doing it since young then it would have been considered as rape in singapore if they are under the age


for consensual sex and even if they are over age they may not have consented but they have may been forced or coerced or if they were treated to to train to do give do sex works from young , and and forced to do it then that may have been the way of life that they have gotten used to so they I don't think they would maybe consent from that perspective


alright so so consent and and the source of sex workers should be key because if not you will be raped and it's very hard to distinguish between rape and whether there's consent or not, and second the the concern about sex work is that there are a lot of STD sexually transmitted diseases uh thing uh transmitted because of this as because as be as because


a lot of people are just indiscriminating transmitting the diseases , and if so somebody have AIDS or some other STD they will just go to visit the sex workers and , and then it's just because we don't know and then they will just spread to other people like so you will just proliferate these these viruses and diseases and it's very hard to prove who this transmitter of disease and so it's very hard to to pursue that person and so so that that is fundamentally bad because we are transmitting diseases and that should not be allowed


uh unless there are very good controls or read or measures to put in place to stop that but there is I I would argue that that is extremely hard to do that so so, I believe that sex work should not be made legal


over to you F night is it your time now


thank you Boon let me cover some of the points that you mentioned uh and the point of the flaws in some of the arguments firstly is that p


in some countries people are not coerced into sex and they are legalised and it appears that they are they are doing it willingly but we need to take a step back and determine how do they even come to do this for example if you have


five daughters you marry your wife and then you give birth to five daughters and five sons for example you have ten children would you encourage all of them to go and do sex work I don't think so right if you can guarantee then I'm think you are the one minority but I think most of the people in the world would say no they wouldn't want their children


to go and do sex work so we need to understand even if it's legalised who will be doing these sex work probably they all could be they have been coerced or forced to do it in from the start right who would want to do it in the start, that's that's one and then the part of the environment and the government and the education system is meant to let people be able to make their own living use their intellectual abilities or their labour abilities or their


energy to do useful or productive work and to contribute to the the economy and probably is the sex work is probably not one of the the the fundamental reasons for the economy and for the education , and so I don't think the the the the people are willingly doing sex work I think it's very hard to prove


maybe you could go and do a survey of all the sex workers how did they start do to do this sex work they do, willingly and why probably maybe some of them could have been doing it for money that could be one reason but uh if you are the parent I don't think you want your children to do it do sex work right


but even if it's for money but probably it in in may just only be, for a short while right once they have solved their money issues why would they want to continue doing it there could be various reasons or they would still want more money but that is not one of the reasons to be the


you are right I mean if I like to kill people doesn't meet doesn't mean that lead killing people should be legal right uh second point is that , I think you mentioned that there there is very few people being kidnapped I think


so if it's legal then it will stop a lot of uh kidnapping and human trafficking that may not be the case right because if I'm running a sex work , pro pro I'm a provider of sex work then I need to find sex workers right and how do I find them I need to find some ways to source for them right if I can get volunteers then that would be best to to volunteers who sign up with me but if not then I still have to resort to kidnapping right get uh girls young girls from


maybe some countries and then let's bring them over and that that's very hard to to to prevent right if not then I will have no business so that is very tricky part that then needs to needs to be addressed, and the other thing the other point about the STD well then that is a tricky problem because STD can spread very fast whatsapp hooker can have


ten twenty clients a day , so how do you identify which uh person is transmitting the STD it it and STD needs time to track right so you may take take one or two weeks to identify whether and the proof that the the test is positive that's a STD or HIV and then by the time how do you go and prevent the further spread


during that one week then how do you identify who is the one spreading it will probably be very hard, right so even if the sex workers are checked and proven to be fine the their client is could infect them and then they could infect a few more people uh in the interim and in the interim when the test results are out and or before the tracking is done they could have spread to a lot of more


people so there is no way to end that right so to end that we need a circuit breaker oh like what singapore has been doing so we need to stop stop and make it not legal , and I think time is running out so I think just to sum it up I think sex work, should not be legal for these various reasons is there's a lot of sex STD beings uh being going around and people are coerced into it people should be doing it voluntarily


if they want to do sex they can find their own friends or find find girls or find guys on the market but it's not a doesn't mean it's legal right , I mean I mean that doesn't mean that we should legalise sex work as a business as a profession and let let sex workers take their own clients anyone and anyhow they like


yup and therefore sex work should not be legal thank you


part two debate topic two


okay thank you very much I represent the opposition and I believe that charity work should not be made compulsory I'll first address your points and part of the flaws in the arguments and then after that I'll introduce some new points for discussion


firstly you mentioned that the young people through the social media and internet, err and and have , different preferences and awareness and so on and social issues and singapore has re uh a old old people because of a aging population and all those


this also need address that I think for the , people who want to do social work like to work with the uh disabled people or the less fortunate people , there is they can join it as a profession they can do it as a work as a career so there there is people doing that now right you can see that uh there are a lot of volunt there are people a lot of people doing it as a social worker as a profession


they can do that right and it's, that they don't have enough labour they can always hire more people that is that's no issue right because these people also need to , eat and live and pay their bills and travel right and transport and pay for their transport fares so they need to they need to be paid and so if charity work is if it's free then how do you uh who is going to pay for the transport costs to make them move there right so so that's already


profession and the profession can hire more people the second point is about the young people right whether whether you want the young people to do all these charity work or what , what what's the point as in, if they want to if they want to do then they can they can go and volunteer themselves right if they don't want to do if you make


compulsory they will just sit there and do nothing right if for example if they have a old folks' home visit and then you get the people to go there and do whatever uh help clean the rooms of the old folks or to distribute food to them what if there the people there sit there and do nothing and are you going to force them and put a gun to their head and make them move


they even if they move they may may show unhappy face and not not do not do anything right so I think I think it should not be made compulsory right , then you mentioned about the distributing wrong and mixing people around well that that that may not as uh really work as in it it really boils down to implementation how exactly are you going to implement it right people of your


same category may just mix together and go and do charity work together so it's still the same category of people you won't be able to mix people from all over different different classes even if you do mix what what is it may not help with anything right they can just sit there at nothing and then they will just be angry and then they they are just wasting their time


right so it really boils down to implementation as well right , and so let me introduce some new points as in why charity work should not be made compulsory firstly is in as as mentioned just now implementation is very hard one is how how you are going to implement it who will need to do


from charity work how many hours how where who what when right so it's very hard so so I can just say I sit in the old folks' home I've joined a charity work but I do nothing there for ten hours a week a month then have I done it have I not done it it's very hard to to justify right


and do I have the heart if I don't have the heart why why am I doing it uh and in a if I'm uh not not achieve anything by sitting there and do nothing then why, make it compulsory right and so so it doesn't really help anything at all actually, and second point is it should not be made compulsory because it is a different let's say if you want to make it compulsory by law then it's a different category right it's forcing people to do something by law that is that that that


that is out of yes free so that is very weird and a bit wrong right isn't it uh why why not I, force someone to work for me for free then isn't it doesn't it doesn't make sense to you right, sort of like force people to go and provide free labour for uh old folks' home or children's home uh for for for no


compensation then who is going to pay for the transport so if I take a taxi there I'm going to tell the taxi driver that !oi! I'm doing charity work so I the taxi fare should be free, and then afterward I got to go and get my lunch then I should say I'm doing charity work so I should the the food should be free for me it's very hard right because the society needs needs money to work I need to travel there to do do charity work and I need to feed myself then where is all the food and money going to come from then so it doesn't really make sense and if it's by law then


is the government going to pay me to do charity work then is paid charity is paid work right then using the social service so so so then is, it's very hard to implement right so so I think my time's up so now back to you to the proposition


thank you the proposition for the sharing the ideas uh let me just quickly address your points I think I think the fundamental flaw with your argument is that did did the proposition is saying that charity work is good however it's not very clear as to


if charity work is good then it should be made compulsory it's not very clear that this point has been addressed because , something is good doesn't mean it must be made compulsory right it can be voluntary as well if it is so good and everyone recognises that then they would do it voluntarily themselves anyway so that there may not be a reason or need for make it compulsory in the end


so I think that proposition has not been able to address or identify that properly or strongly as as should be, and republisher has mentioned that charity can't be measured in dollars and cents should I tell that to the taxi driver as well or the


the restaurant as well when I'm buying food from them and telling them oh I'm a charity worker I'm a volunteer so you should give me free food and free lodging and free transport as well I think they will just give me a slap in the, face and not give me anything right so I think that there must be


a a a clear clear argument from the population as to why it should be compulsory , and as you said the proposition has also mentioned that people stopped being philanthropy well that need not be the be the case as in now still a lot of people donating a lot you can see the bill gates foundation they are donating a lot of money all over the world people are still making donations


I've seen people uh seen there are beggars among the streets and people are still be giving them some money , even the the buskers who are performing in the streets people are still giving them some money as well so it some people mays not donate but some people are still donating


so and it has no direct correlation with whether charity work if it's com, compulsory then people would would make more donations there's no direct linkage or it has not been shown by the proposition and proposition has also mentioned


that about noble ideas common goal and all these well in proposition you just saying that is good but it has not incur as to why it should be made compulsory but if it things are good people can do it voluntarily right and, so therefore there's really really re very little reason to make charity work


compulsory for everyone in the whole society of all ages and at all stages right so as I've mentioned one is implementation is very hard and two how do you actually go and uh force people to do it will you as in do it properly and do it it


to achieve the means right so for example people have been , uh if you have see some students on flag days where they just stand there and ask for a donations from people but you have to think take a step back and think for people donating do I know who is it who is the money going to is the money going into someone's golden toilet bowl and golden tap


or is it going to reach the beneficiary right is it even if the money is going to reach beneficiary what beneficiary is it is it going to buy pay for the meal of us, disabled uh or or student needy student in the school are they really needy is the government helping them as well why is the money going to them and so what and then for the student who is during the flag day


for them it just going to ask for money then does it really make sense does it really help them to do anything does it really achieve any of the goals that you mentioned did what they know they just, for the the the person who donated you just bring money in , and then for the person who collect the money he just collected the money the they are do you see the beneficiary you don't see where the money goes to they don't even see the impact and they don't even know what is happening right it is just they being forcing them to do something that they don't even understand or appreciate and it doesn't really help anything at all other than the money goes to someone's toilet golden toilet bowl


right so it's very hard to track the money as well and to to and really implement it , and , and of course going back to the point of uh the society and all those well the government can do a lot of things that's why the government is there for the government set up a lot of main issues a lot of agencies to to do do to help a lot of the disabled


and the the unfortunate people out uh who needs help from the government and of course if they need help they can source for donations and of course these all these are voluntary or they are employees so there's really no reason or no need to make it compulsory even if you make it compulsory how are you going to make it com


compulsory it is I I suppose it will be very challenging and very hard to re-implement and make it compulsory and people would just not be happy to the extent that maybe people may not even come to this country , if for example imagine singapore make it contribute compulsory for everyone right will people come to singapore will people want to work in singapore if charity work is taking up so much of their time right then how do they even work


I'm so busy with my work for example I'm spending like uh ten ten fifteen hours a day working I want to rest and then the government is forcing me to do charity work , if I spend my time on doing charity work then how do I do my work or how do I rest or how do I go and find a girlfriend make babies and and make the country population grow so it has to be a balance right government can encou could possible encourage charity work volunteer work encourage people to do charity and


volunteer but to make compulsory is a totally different ball game altogether right it's a totally different argument and you really need a strong reasons to make it compulsory right so it is extremely hard , even for election for example it is compulsory but people may just not go and vote right how do you force people to go and vote how to implement it are you going to


of course for if you mentioned just now national service you can make it compulsory of course because the they actually implement it right if you don't want to do national service you don't be a singaporean that's it that's fine people will know about it right if you are singaporean you want to enjoy the benefits singaporean then you have to do chat uh national service if not then you have to go to


go to the DB right the detention barracks but the jail , right so so the government actually enforces it and people are aware of it and people are willing, (ppc), uh can make a choice by being in singapore and uh being a singaporean right , but being if charity work is being compulsory in singapore uh are we going to force people away from singapore then what will happen to the economy of singapore that may be a bad impact right singapore is trying to


uh attracts people to our country right so we want to actually we are trying to our country don't want to deter them away right so if this is going to deter them away then this is against the policy of singapore of course we are talking about other country as well it should generally apply to all countries as well right so it will be very hard to implement people what countries want to attract people to their country get in


incentivize their people , to go to go to their country has more benefits and if charity work is compulsory then it may really deter people from going to their country right so, , ya so to summarise I think whether charity work is good or not does we need to also understand why and how to make it compulsory it is and and and and I propose that it's very hard to make compulsory regardless how good it is it's very hard to implement it's hard to make it compulsory and therefore until you have a good solution got good reason


to implement and to find out how to do it then it should not be made compulsory at this point of time right so uh back to the proposition do you have any last minute comments to add ,


uh understand that but I think it's to me com it's compulsory because the government wants it and


to make sure that people do it in in in case of people who are disadvantaged I think our time is up , thank you


part three debate topic three


uh thank you for the proposition for sharing your points I represent I represent the opposition and therefore my my stand is that death penalty should not be abolished and it should be continued let me address some of the points provided proposition first


well the proposition mentioned about the bible FYI others and china and korea are using it as a political tool to get rid of opponents, well I I it is unfortunate that people are using this, death penalty but in the wrong way but if we have a strong justice system that's independent of the political system and the government and it's independent and strong


and there should not be a case where that that happens right so therefore is key that we ensure that the justice system is independent, and strong, and be able to and not corrupt right so to test a fundamental uh uh uh uh aim that we should drive that but that doesn't mean that definitely should be abolished just because of people of abusing the system


right, as in we need to go for the fundamentals first whether the people are abusing it they are they are using it wrongly that that should be stopped then that doesn't mean that death penalty should be abolished because people are abusing it right and the same point about adultery


leads to death penalty under the sharia law about that uh depends on what country it is but for most countries like, eyeing the fundamental tenet and fundamental basis for punishment and for the legal system for the justice system is that whatever crimes that people are doing


in order to deter them from doing a crime they should be punished in a same extent and a same uh, asked to to to compensate in the same manner as what the crimes that they have done or even a bit more to in order to deter them right based on the severity of their crimes right so if someone has minor minor crime they are also mildly punished only to a small extent right uh


and but if someone has committed a major crime then they will be punished more major accordingly right so, if adultery, as in as in depending on I'm not going to debate about sharia law because it's a different it it has it links with religion but right I think we want to avoid religion discussions over here but in general right adultery


is the different problem to have so I'm not sure why it it is leads to death penalty but I think in singapore it it there's no such case so I think we won't talk about that but in general right back to the uh uh the the question about whether death penalty should be abolished


if someone has killed someone, else the murderer, can only be be forced to compensate by his own death right that that that's why there's this death penalty that it has been present in some countries


for that reason right that is because that is the only good reason or good way for the person to make good , and compensate and to be punished for the crime that they have committed, uh if compared to lifetime imprisonment it is not sufficient right if not if the death penalty is is abolished and if replaced with punished by lifetime imprisonment then wouldn't then probably uh some murderer can just continue to go and murder a lot of people


and then they will will just go to the jail and then be fed and have a good living have a good shelter for the rest of their life and then would they, be sufficiently compact deterred from killing people probably not right they may committed to kill more people before they get they get jailed right and or even go and go and commit more peo kill more people in order to get fed for the rest of their life


okay then there's another point about the, this death penalty that proposition has mentioned is that, in which the proposition mentioned various case studies about Christopher and Daniel , and and and various victims and so on


but it's not very clear also what the proposition is saying as in why sh death penalty sh death penalty should be abolished as in there could be various different cases where people uh think that the the criminal should not be, uh punished by death there could be various reasons in different circumstances or


or , uh intricacies in each of the cases nuances in each cases but generally death penalty should not be abolished because, for murderers they, forcefully taken the lives of other people without without consent without any reason


then they have to be punished right and what is the form of punishment for them the the best way is death right because they took away someones else life and then how do they compensate it money may not be sufficient lifetime imprisonment may not be sufficient and therefore they should pay with their own uh life right and


uh but I think my time is up so now back to the proposition


thank you for the proposition first let me address the point about the Christopher and Daniel well uh it is most unfortunate I think probably there could be some uh leeway for


give some uh exception but as in that could be probably just an exception to give up to pardon the the murderer from the death penalty but this is a exception rather than a norm as in the death penalty can still be there and there could be some uh uh measures or some some last resort


for there to be a re a reason as in a method, for the murderer to be pardoned by the president or the prime minister of a country based on uh certain criteria and certain restrictions so I think that could be done so that is not really a argument for for be for abolishing the death penalty on a on a overall basis but of course there could be measures on us


case by case basis where where there could be uh ways for that the death penalty to be avoided for such people , uh where the victims have pleaded for them, right, and okay so then move on to other points about the per price tag and not should not play god and take lives well then the question is if death penalty is abolished what is going to be the replacement right so I will assume the replacement will be a lifetime imprisonment


so can I ask who will be paying for that are you going to pay for that I'm not going to definitely go and pay for that, will the government be paying for that if the government is paying for that then wouldn't it take a toll on on our taxes and all those right imagine if the country needs the money the taxes and the money to survive and to to boost the economy but instead they spend the money on


feeding and uh , giving , shelter and and and food for all those uh prison people in the prison who are, therefore the whole of their life wouldn't the country not be able to sustain, as in


uh I think that there must be a line drawn of course if, they did the the murderers take the life of other people, uh forcefully then they should pay for it right as in, they paid god themselves and therefore, they they should also compensate by with their own lives as well


right so so is quite tricky as to what is the, err err, if the death penalty is abolished what is going to happen right the second point is about , you the proposition mentioned


should find ways to improve as to why the people committed the crimes but that that that work has to be done of course as in to prevent uh people from going around to murder people right of course education is key uh as in, the mental health of people is the key and the society values and the


err err help, as in social workers can help people uh you know to identify this kind of uh issues earlier so people will don't go and, and, uh be able control their anger and to , don't want to go and kill people, of course that that should be done now that doesn't mean that death penalty should be abolished


, and you mentioned that the proposition mentioned that in europe interestingly there's slow homicide rate and there's no death penalty as well and in US there's high homicide rate and , there's death penalty oh that that is they may not be as direct correlation but it is a a deterrent death penalty is a deterrent to to to to


to to deter people from murder of course at there could be different reasons as to why the death penalty in the US didn't , uh deter people from, committing murder there there could be underlying reasons between in the US where people are


has, the tendency or they are they are very stressed or they have a lot of anger build up that that led to them committing a murder and and they don't care about their own lives uh but the problem is if they don't want, whether they care about the lives of other people and whether they care about life of them is a separate issue right so we are just trying to say that


if they have taken the life of other people then we make them pay back by taking their own lives they may not have been deterred by definitely because they don't value their own lives but other people do value their own lives and and that's a serious situation so so, it it cannot be be that they don't value their own lives and therefore other people's life should not be valued as well and and so that that that is the death penalty should still be there


and just to and the last point about the death penalty's uh arcane system well I think it is always there as in as long as humans are are around that there may be people doing uh murdering people and death penalty should always be there as a deterrent to deter people from going around and taking the lives of other people


uh forcefully and, uh, wrongly because people still value their lives and therefore death penalty should not be abolished, thank you very much


, this is a great idea ,


debate topic one


can we get to start with the debate, so my my proposition is uh sex work should be legal, err because I feel uh because in in, in in a hum in a history of , uh humankind


uh the sex workers uh has been the longest profession, ever, uh it's recorded in old books, you know as old as the bible and the quran, uh those there has always been a need for, sexual work sexual worker to be in in in our society


and if you look at singapore's history, err there's always been deficit in in in female, and , the first people that came to singapore were were were mostly men, so , uh so when the when the british colonial master decided to


to uh to plan our our city they plan, uh they didn't take into account of this, differences in in the the in the demographics and then decide to allow , uh prostitution, and sex workers to to operate you you need a legal framework


uh some of the long some of the some of some of the biggest professions in Singapore's in in the beginning earlier this were were, coolies , uh and now is now is and now we have construction workers shipyard workers


err a lot of labourers, so all these all these all these , all these all these people have uh , have a need and because they spend so much time in singapore I think there's always a uh uh uh uh


they need they need they need to have a venue for for them to to go to uh , you know to fulfill their sexual biological needs, another thing that I want to talk about is uh , it's something that people don't really talk about it's


the sexual needs of minorities and the disabled you know a lot of people a lot of disabled they they they they have sexual needs to , uh and it's very very hard to address, uh their sexual needs because you know by default that they are did disabled so there is no way there's no way for


for you know for any, societal apparatus to to to help them with uh , to addressing their sexual needs, so having sexual workers, gave us a


a solution to to help these sexual workers you know have the same , kind of dignity as any other human being, uh I believe that uh sexual arise is


as equal as other rights, uh that we have in , in a democratic society that we're living in right now, having going forward you know there's nothing, there's nothing you can use to replace err, uh these these kind these these kind of


intimate and physical comfort that sexual workers, are able to provide to some of them, marginalised communities in societies err , a lot of people would have against, uh prostitution or sexual worker workers workers


uh based on their you know their their their, moral values but if you look at history you know no matter how , how much societal values have shifted, prostitution has never gone away, so I think that you know as


much as , humans have evolved certain things, certain things and certain basic basic needs of humans beings have hasn't, really really change , so with that I by I, I propose that , sexual uh workers sexual work should be made legal


and protected by the law, thank you


(ppc)


hi thank you Xin-Lan for addressing the uh that the your points , uh I think you made a few mistakes I would like to correct uh firstly , err you mentioned that uh a lot of, workers, sex workers are are coerced into the profession but I want to point out point out to you is that is not the case in countries that have legalised sex work particularly in in europe and particularly in singapore


err because of regulations, uh sex workers are considered , uh part of you know the civil service they are protected by the law so they they they have to go through they have to go through the to the social services , they have to go they have to go to see counsellors and they have to go to to to regular checkups


uh whether is mental health or whether is for their physical health, so with this uh legal framework in mind, uh there are very little uh, cases of, or almost none of of any cases of uh


uh human trafficking or for uh coercion into the profession, that's that's that's one point , and on the other hand on the other hand you've other countries like in in the middle east in huge parts of of asia in india in, in pakistan , in uh bangladesh when there is a very huge stigma attached to sex workers


and to the sex profession , uh a lot of pit a lot of these these uh sex workers were in fact , they were kidnapped or they were, they were you know they were forced into the profession from young so I agree with with that but that's because, that's that's that's precisely because there's no there's no regulation and there's no


uh legal operators to, to to, to watch out for these these these peoples, and, singapore people spend uh we have a lot of you know in the recent case that in the recent COVID nineteen ,


pandemic we saw that there are about , three hundred thousand male workers, living in singapore at any one time, so, imagine you have a country with three hundred thousand, err, male workers and they live in singapore


uh in bulks of say six months to a year, I think they sometimes need , there's a biological there's a biological need for them to, to you know to seek for sexual services, uh and I think that is uh and then and then I I I think so far singapore has done a pretty good job


make sure that you know , all these all these foreign workers don't they don't go out to you know to , uh to harm to or to, offend vent their vent their , uh sexual needs, uh you know at at any you know random female in society


uh that's what that's what that's that's that's why I think that that's why I think that you know legalization is is is better than than making, making it illegal , and with regards with regards to what you say about AIDS uh is being spreaded in


uh amongst the amongst the , uh sexual workers and and, and , and and the client I think that is a falsehood as well because, in you know in if it's if it's all regulated uh then , prostitute, you know sex workers has to go to uh check up every two weeks so that reduces and in in fact eradicate the the possibility of spreading STDs or any kinds of


uh diseases , okay uh you know you you you earlier you mentioned about how, uh in as in in in the past uh we have a different kind of society where, where , women have women have less rights


uh and uh society was a little bit was a bit more feudal was a bit more primitive , uh and I agree with you we are we are we we we are we are feudal and and we are primitive that's why there was there was there was, never a law or or you know discussion about sex work sex work and what is the value of sex work


and I believe that going forward you know we should make sex work equal so instead of work sex workers who are female which also makes that we should we should also take into consideration them , uh sex work should be you know egalitarian it should be sexually equality between a male and female sex so you should also have male sex workers


, then uh the last point I wanted I wanted to share before I end this convert I uh you know at I pass it on to you is I I feel that , uh , the needs of uh disadvantaged people