, so I think uh what I gathered is uh two is is two point I would like to have a discussion with you on which is firstly you mentioned that there is more there's more more crimes right so I think it's not a very fair statement because uh you you're only looking at


on one spectrum that's all, so the other spectrum here is you know yes that is uh more crimes with technology because there's more avenues, but how about the good that that technology has brought us, you know you used to you know if you want to purchase something you know uh you or rather you want to transfer money to some other people you need to go to an you need to go to an ATM machine yes so right now you can do it at the tip of your fingertips


but of course uh I have to agree you know is a is a risk that you have to undertake which is why I said uh I mentioned that with the help of, uh, with the help of uh ed~uh education the banks in fact could could actually safeguard which is why you know uh


ah living in singapore you know there is uh there is singpass there's so many uh protection layers to make sure that uh to try and make sure that uh we we are we do not, we are not uh


ya we won't be impersonated as well, so I think that you know uh yes that is more avenues to more to more crimes but on the other side of, uh, of the glass you know is that there is definitely, uh more pros to it than just the cons just that uh I believe I personally believe that it is because of (ppc) the lack of uh the the this is we we live in a generation whereby it's a technology boom so you know it it is happening too fast for people to catch up


so in fact we need to learn more about it, so that brings me to my next point which is to say that you know old people don't like uh probably older generation don't like changes but however I feel like change is the only constant so you can't exactly uh just just don't change what if the change is for the better


then uh but it's going to take you a bit of time to learn it's going to take you uh a bit of effort to learn as well so do you stay stagnant forever we used to drive manual cars now that you know people drive auto last time you know in the in the in the olden days


there is no power steering so you need to use all your force and might to steer right now there's power steering so if we just stay and do not uh go and and we don't advance then , all this wouldn't come with it as well just like the just like you and me we're in the comfort of our own home doing this survey right now so I think technology definitely brings uh


brings people brings people closer and it's uh actually, very important for us to have technology in our life, yes


ya uh so is, actually I think uh the wind uh you just you just put wind in my sail, uh for pollution wise right I realize I I believe that yes I agree with you you know because uh limited to certain technology at at that point of time when uh when cars were made so right now we have advanced towards


in fact we have a working electric car, that is uh the company that elon musk founded tesla tesla motors, you know it it charges via electricity so you know if you talk if if you know if people can uh let go of uh using petroleum and just use and just go fully electrical then I believe that you know the the future will be greener will be greater


that uh we are able to use electricity to power our our our vehicle and most importantly to debate your point is to have lesser pollution, and, of course we might not be at that stage right now but however you know as as a race you know we are always evolving we are always advancing we are always engineering so


ya so I I I I would think that, in terms of pollution wise you know in in a in a few more years time hopefully uh people will be driving uh electric cars and therefore there will be lesser uh pollution, we are not ready


so technology still wins technology is important and it is the key to our to our future actually yes and uh it , sorry please please go please go ahead ya


, ya uh so I think it it it goes back to the second point the third point that we have you know is that uh in but in but in this context of little bit different uh previously you were saying that old people don't like change so I think that you know humans in general don't like change because we are a creature of comfort so


I don't think that it is uh impossible to not go green to go fully to go to things like drive an to drive an to drive an electric car but in fact I think that is because we are not uh, we are not well versed in the topic enough to actually uh to own one and and and the switch could be a little bit more uh could be a little bit tougher so I think that this could be done but of course you know we need a bit more time to let people adopt the idea of driving uh electric car


and uh we have seen it that you know once uh for example uh, where I live in singapore uh electric scooters you know is is is a great way to get around in fact in china most people are actually using electric scooters to get from point a to point to point b the recharge time is a bit lesser


uh the the the recharge time is getting shorter it's not the best yet I have to admit it's not it's not the best yet but we are getting there you know inch by inch you know it's it's not just about oh ya uh this this won't work right now doesn't mean that it wouldn't work in the future, so I think that technology is definitely the future and I uh and I refused to acknowledge that you know uh we as we we we as a race should not uh should stop or rather do not uh improve to learn more to understand more to create more technology in fact is


I think it will it is still beneficial uh I think it is it still benefits human because ah, talking about not using your mind I I I cannot greatly disagree you know because uh yes we used to remember our friends' phone and uh our their phone number by heart but the thing is you know


if it's really truly that important I believe you will know your parents' number by heart because it's about what's important to you and what is not important to you so uh and you talk about uh reliable what if technology goes down


but I know I I strongly believe this is a very big worry you know because uh how can technology go goes down this is uh we live in a world where whereby it's almost impossible to to actually imagine that, and uh talk about uh relying you know being very reliant on technology right human nowadays learn faster because of technology uh simply put we we learn faster because technology the the statement itself is because


you know we get information much faster you know we we we used to have a have a have a problem for example you go to school on friday, you know you have your homework but probably because uh you do not understand the questions then you go on the internet then you look for more solutions and then may be some on the internet explain slightly better or or or rather have a different uh way of explaining


therefore uh it it's just much harder to understand but sorry just because they explain it differently so it's easier for you to understand correction yes, so uh I I still don't see that you know this is a very big what if that you are proposing that I don't uh genuinely think that


technology will just go down because how how do technology go down is it because we don't have anymore anymore electricity is it that we don't have any more oil or whatsoever I I don't see how is this actually going to happen so ya


so we press stop right


part two debate topic two


so uh Zhe-Ning when you are ready let me know I think you started the ball rolling just now so it's right that actually I I start this round, okay so uh the topic is machine make human and their jobs obsolete uh I disagree, (ppc)


because I think that machine fine tune, uh, fine tune the process and it's uh uh lesser labour intensive and is uh much better, for for for us and uh, no but they do not make the jobs obsolete they they they make the job process much faster and actually uh companies can produce more


ya, so uh firstly you talk about uh, jobs that uh we we we might have uh lesser jobs right uh, I think again you know it it brings me back to uh evolution


as uh, as a human in in fact you know without, such without machine you know let's talk about machine that we use on a daily basis every day in fact every few hours you have to use it the machine is called a toilet bowl


so you know uh without a toilet bowl can you imagine, actually uh answering nature's call in a pail, and if, you are not living alone you are good to share that pail and how are you going to dispose it


uh many many eons ago, people actually you know uh have uh have to have uh, I don't know what the official job title is I apologise for this but however uh people have uh the the their sole job this occupation the sole job is to actually bring the human waste you know to somewhere to dispose of


and how hazardous will it be for, that occupation to actually have to bring people's waste to dispose, so I think that uh, that machine that that miracle machine you know uh a toilet uh a toilet bowl in fact you know is


is is is a system that really revolutionise everything it change everything you know and uh it it it has it has come to a point where whereby uh although not adopted by all the countries in the world but by by far and large you know the countries that I've been to uh


uh several countries that I've been to you know it it it is a necessity is no longer a want is a need, and not because of just purely comfort you know is is because uh it is, it reduces that particular job but their job to begin with is dangerous so uh brings me to my second point which is uh what you have mentioned AI


so uh with with with AI you know a lot of jobs are are are down you know what what you mentioned as experts so, many years ago again you know uh I I'm a strong believer in evolution and uh advancement in through technology so technology and machines are are closely needed together so


you talk about AI uh, AI doesn't uh will push a lot of people out of jobs yes, people who are push out of job because they refused to learn another skill that they could be good in things that you know for example if if they're uh like what you've mentioned


uh risk risk analyst right so what can they do from that point on have they actually explored what can they do besides that in that particular field could their skill set be expanded and schools in fact uh actually


encouraging people to understand more to learn more so uh that being sick if those proclaim expert nor I, are losing job because of AI they, then, if you already see at this point in stage that it is uh the AI is going to overtake your role then don't you think that it's about time you you you go into something else you mention journalists are


getting uh, are getting jobless because of AI personally I have not seen it happen yet, strongly I still see human journalists I I don't think uh maybe I'm a bit shallow I I haven't seen uh AI journalist yet so uh I I don't


I I don't see that happening too soon, yes you can generate news it it might have the possibility of uh create create creating media but there's always something special to the human touch, which I don't think that AI uh


might be able to handle so yes uh on the school topic and the jobs topic and the expert right so uh ya, and ya so for top expert I think that you know they are they are


not really an expert if, that if or rather their skill is a little bit too niche to be expert in that one particular field that they have absolutely no, or uh, no no place to turn to after computer come and take over but for machines


uh but for machines to come in and take over their job right then don't you think that uh if that if someone is going to write be able to write a data that can do that can do their job with more accuracy then we can trust the machine can we not


so obviously I mean uh let's tackle the job first then uh we go by smartphone then we go by you know your job which is uh threatened


so okay so I think first we go to the job uh urinal you know the you know I I don't know what the occupation is called uh the urinal people so you said that uh machines have taken over their job, and you know they they they they might be, be uh


their job is obsolete so however you know because they deal with waste so if they're able to train and actually to work for a plumbing company this is another alternative that we can look at it is not exactly obsolete they are still be able to provide for the family because when you come to think about it


no one in the right mind would definitely or or or as a kid you know uh for me at least I would say I want to be a fire men I want to be a police officer I I I want I want to join the military , but however uh no one will say oh look I want to help people to clear poop I I'll I'll I'm I'm sorry for the language ya I I would like to help people to clear their waste so ya but however you know they are in that particular situation uh which might not be very ideal but however


you know when comes you know the machine the the special the miracle machine of uh of a toilet bowl you know they're able to go into plumbing maybe because they are able to withstand you know the the filth and the smell that they're they're able to help people to fix up toilets or maybe as a plumber


you know because they're they're like like what I've shared is that they are they are ready uh this in fact a a much better role and from there you know they learn something new they advance instead of being stagnant, and you also mention to things like janitor uh


this is not a very strong strong strong source but according to wiki answers, uh, if it is correct forty thousand related injuries occur definitely in the US on a yearly basis so, how many of them are janitors what if what if


you know half of them are janitor let's just say even a quarter of it just a quarter of it is uh ten thousand people if we can prevent this ten thousand people from uh falling down whatsoever in the toilet in their line of duty then wouldn't that


be, good you know we have lesser injured people, and then ya yes but they might lose their job yes but like what I shared with you know the the more who clears waste that could their their job could be repurposed what if, they are the one supposed to uh to to to plan for the AI on where or where they're supposed to go when where where where the robots are supposed to go where the machines are supposed to go in fact


to clean therefore you know and reduce their own chance of uh, falling down what if they are one of the ten thousand people so yes and you talk about uh, robot cop in china honestly I haven't seen it it sounds uh fairly interesting but yes you see


humans are not a hundred per cent you know, for a cop you know if you are identified as a criminal you know, there's zero chance that you put uh trick a machine you know of feelings because uh a machine don't necessarily have feelings so you can't say uh you you if you are who the police is looking for


then the robot the robot cop should arrest you you know in fact you know we have seen uh police officers let people get away like uh in nineteen twenties I I I believed that there was this uh there was this great uh escape artist, he escaped he he escaped in US and then he was uh he was stopped by a police officer


but because he was very charismatic he was very joyful he managed to convince, the police officer that he is not who, the justice system is looking for, and the police officer let him go, so if a robot cop was was was the one who actually uh


uh on the job who caught him, there is almost zero chance there, he could be let go so, ya I I I see more pros than cons in having a robot policing, and you're able to identify threats or or or like uh you can you're able to to identify threats before it happens or like to put uh to put a yellow marker on that person so I think that you know it is definitely uh a win the machine


is helping to keep us safer, and your last point , uh smartphone right uh you mention something about smartphone about us uh being too reliant on the machine which is what we used as our phone, but again you know this machine brings us countless hours of uh


of joy talking to our friends you know we listen to music on them so this this machine is so handy that you know we we we have in our pocket now that you know we are able to capture memories we are we are able to to play a song you know at a at a at a festival maybe so


I don't see how machines are making people's uh job obsolete but, if you talk about smartphone right you need people to create a smartphone so isn't that creating more jobs as per say like as as as to you know people are are machine is taking over people's job while some jobs are obsolete but there are new opportunity that right


that that that uh that, uh what's the word I'm looking for that uh that shows itself, ya and you talk about your job being uh obsolete because of uh, machine right well I would think that uh the the the argument here is not with AI but the argument here is with machines I don't I I don't I don't know what you do but uh I would say that uh machines


proud if the machine can take over your job then maybe it's time to uh look for somewhere whereby you can expand to you know you you build on the foundation of what you already have and it's not that every few years you know your job will get obsolete you need to learn a completely new thing no that's not it the the thing here is to actually uh


broaden the job scope, and to actually learn a bit more thing so yes,


part three debate topic three


ya you want to go first


if we have our own rights on own own body right then uh, again it is back to where where I come from ya I'm living in singapore so therefore, that centre shouldn't be a thing, then, because uh if you have the right to choose to kill yourself then you know because you said that you know your own your own body your own choice right then the state has got no right to uh to to to end your life uh but however uh this topic is is quite uh


it's quite deep I feel because uh there is voluntary non non voluntary and involuntary so uh I am not sure on when or where you know uh, it should be legalised or more


but however I I've I don't think that it should be legalised because uh what if it's someone who is suffering from depression who just wants to kill himself or herself you know and we have actually look at people who suffer from depression if when they got out of it they manage to


uh, to to do a lot of great things like for example uh tyson fury the heavyweight the the world boxing, corporations a heavyweight champion right now he was depressed he got up and he is even better than ever at least from what


it seems so can you imagine if he goes somewhere and he says like oh I I I just want to die and they just oh okay want to die sure and how is it taken so lightly a person's life, that, that that that is taken ever so lightly


so


okay so uh I would like to quickly address uh abortion versus uh euthanasia is that uh most country that I understand uh is before a a a set amount of weeks


that is because uh usually that is before the brain is formed so therefore uh abortion and euthanasia cannot be linked together because it this uh two different topic altogether, and it is not taking your life uh per say yet because it the it the the the fetus has not developed the brain


to actually uh to have feelings and to feel things or maybe not yet , but however uh you mentioned that uh all the all the financial difficulty you know your family and loved ones uh, dying honourably


but uh if if I may ask you know what if, a homeless man suffering from a few deadly disease deadly which means that there's no cure they are about to die and is disabled, he has got no family that you can go you can he that that the state can uh


can contact, so do you think that uh is okay fine to die I mean financially he's already homeless so chances are, you know he couldn't afford it so he said oh uh just let me die you know I I I just want to die so you think that is okay or what if he felt he doesn't have the ability to speak anymore he went to a coma so is


is it okay for him to just die and you just pull the plug on him and while while he's on the hospital bed you know you you someone found him on the streets brought him to a hospital and just, let him die you know because uh I can't find any ID on him uh he definite he at least they don't seem that he can pay uh based on uh he he don't seem like he can pay the uh he can pays bills so


ya so if he can't speak he's in a coma so do you let him die


okay


so uh per say that the the person is a kid, you know and uh, seven years old deadly terminal stage disease okay may be cancer blood cancer leukemia or that sort so


the parents couldn't afford and then uh, the parents obviously could not afford and the kids say mummy daddy let me die so, what now he can't decide for himself because or he or she can't decide for the kid uh is unable to decide because is below the age of eighteen and in some countries even sixteen that was going to happen if mummy daddy just let me die and what if the parents say yes


what if the parents said yes you are you are just going to let a kid die or maybe let us say is not terminal is may be chances are low you know chances are low so does the kid not fight anymore then don't don't be all just uh just just try to fight this


try to struggle out you know so what if is a kid then what is uh what what were the point be there


okay so let's say fine same scenario but if the kid is seventeen years old it's kind of borderline , tell the parents that !hey! look I want to die I want to you know die while I have, hair before chemotherapy takes me over and I lose all my hair so and so forth right so


what now then do you do you let the kid die seventeen uh seventeen years of age, and what if what if one parent say yes and one parent say no that was it then so, I I I still think that you know it shouldn't be legalised and at least if the person want to die you know at least you know he he or she did put up a struggle and it's not just struggle for the sake of struggling but it it's really shouldn't be


this is assisting with suicide is is is as same as killing someone and I don't think that it should ever be legalised ya is, you know in a in a in a for the lack of better words you know is attempted uh is assisted suicide you know so how is suicide a good word uh suicide means you kill yourself so


I don't see how is that good and I don't think that it should be legalised, ya so what if is the kid then seventeen years of age mother said yes father said no


so just keep him alive then ya, so if that person say I'll give him a fictional name maybe his name is tom okay so keep tom alive until he's eighteen and when he is uh or maybe even twenty one so when he is at the age you know then he can say oh look let's take my life now I have the chance to decide


but your previous your previous argument was with the fact that you know if the kid is too young the parents should be able to decide for the kid so what if you know we we hit the point whereby the kid wants, to die


the mother disagree and the father agree then, then I I mean to a certain degree it brings back to it it brings back to the government right the country's law on whether they prohibit uh euthanasia right


science, science says that is not our life because you don't have a brain to think about it yet,


then you know instead of praying god right you know you you mention about praying god but then you know why are you praying god that you know oh I can't take my own life I can't end my own life then then it doesn't make sense at all that, , not not in the slightest bit because uh if you really look at it that way again


euthanasia in in, it is derived from a greek word of uh good death, but what is a good death then like do you think killing, yourself is good there I I don't think so and what if uh you know


medicine in fact have uh okay we are talking about in the context of purely a disease and uh , and uh, just just uh diseases have uh, and uh, virus okay so, if and


uh medicine has been advancing very rapidly throughout our throughout in fact in our generation you know we've seen medicine uh advance, that quickly so what if


the, heard the person opt to die, but a cure was found, two years later a a cure was found two weeks later then, then don't you think that is a pity, that, he or she didn't wait and then could be he or she could could could the patient could reunite with his or her family as well


okay I don't think that is a very far that is a very fair argument to you, they say that you know, uh, you can plan for it and then you want it to, uh, to to to bid farewell you know , but the thing is if is a a very sudden death then


that is the force of this is a freak accident then no one is to blame for it but in fact you are choosing to end your life earlier than expected I don't think is right


okay debate topic one


okay technology creates more problems than benefits for society, yes technology brings convenience to our lives often speeding up processes helping us to save time , and having the ability to accomplishing more work than we used to however it is more of a problem than a benefit the fact that we are able to accomplish more tasks now means an increase in workload that translates to stress and that's not it with the help of technology we are more accessible to work than ever before


for example an office worker in a sixties will carry out his work within the office premises with a landline and a typewriter, when the clock strikes six he leaves the office and he's done for the day fast forward to twenty twenty on top of the heavy workload office workers today don't really disconnect after disconnect from work after office hours they're easily contactable and they have access to work all within their reach


literally with a few taps on their smartphone or a few clicks on their laptop, people often times find themselves overworked and suffering from fatigue in this fast freedom of life


okay but connecting with people through technology and and even using technology during work it just means that people are spending more screen time than they used to so in fact from our sedentary jobs spending most of our hours in office in front of the computer to spending leisure time on digital entertainment or connecting with people after office hours


actually is bad for both the eyes as well as the body from the physical inactivity and possibly bad sitting postures so this is one aspect of why technology creates more problems that benefits for society


right but let's not forget that the fact that technology also open doors to crimes, so the dawn of the internet as what started the boom of cybercrime, and which is due to ultimate tool criminals use to find and target their prey in today society, as an extension of the internet social media has played a massive role in making it even easier for criminals to get personal information of their prey


back when landlines what a dominant method of contacting someone the caller has to make one call and smooth talk their way to gain access to private information , such as you're banking on social security numbers this is an example of phishing and the unfortunate return of these crimes has dramatically risen over the past few years due to the popularity of smartphones technology


so most of these calls are run by machines using false numbers which I'm sure you have received one before as well according to the singapore police force's annual crime brief for twenty nineteen more than twenty one million dollars was reported loss of impersonation scams and this is just one of the many examples of cybercrime so what do you think about that


yes okay I believe you mentioned that, technology education can actually help to minimise a crime but then it doesn't actually reflect what is, in fact happening in today's society whereby it does bring in more crimes than before yes before technology comes into the picture there were already crimes existing in in the society but my argument is that with technology actually brings in additional


crimes with technology and it makes it even easier for people to do that especially , people who are not so familiar with technology say it the senior citizens the older generations whereby they only got introduced the technology at a very late later part of their life and they are not so familiar with all these techniques of that the scammers used to to


to to impersonate some other people to cheat their money so people people like that they actually fall victim to such crimes and it's very unfortunate due to the rise in technology , while education can be made to to the younger people in schools and as such but it's harder to reach out to the older people in a society to educate them on on the technology and as we all know uh a lot of people they're just afraid


to to new changes and it's just hard to educate such people , you know on the use of technology and the and the possible risks that comes with it, yup


okay so you mention about the cars which is a very good point because we don't use to have cars motor vehicles uh in the past so everything is by carriages or manual manual power, and and in this case with with the technology we have cars and we have buses and we have motorcycles


and all these actually generate pollution to the environment so is actually one aspect of technology it creates uh more problems to the society and for, than benefits yes it's faster for us to get from places to places is more convenient for us to get from places the places we save on time you can accomplish more things but the fact that all these motor vehicles and carbon dioxide emission is actually harmful to the environment so this is one aspect of how I think it's that


for today's society and our future generation so what do you think about that


and yes go ahead go ahead


okay so you mentioned about petroleum and affect that there isn't so many people using there aren't so many people using electric car at the moment and people are still using petroleum as for us it's a very simple reason because , environmentally friendly technology is


expensive and what is more accessible for the general public is something that more more that is cheaper and affordable which is why it's hard for us to transit from, point A to point B at this point in time unless technology has made it affordable for people to unless it had


unless we made it affordable for people to access such technology such environmentally friendly technology it otherwise we'll still be stuck in this period of time whereby we're still using petroleum and we're still using technology that is actually harmful for the environment yes


right it sounds like we are relying very heavily on technology itself at this point it in today's society so


could it be and and a negative effect that it has on on the people the fact that we are so over reliant on technology like we think lesser because uh we rely on our calendars on our phone we we don't remember things we don't use our our mind to actually remember things so we rely heavily on phone


we used to be able to remember phone numbers of our friends but nowadays it's just within a finger tips of uh within the reach of of a thumb or a click away and then we we can't call our friend so, we are always so reliant on technology but say if one day technology were to fail on us then what is it that we can do anymore so would that be uh actually a negative effect rather than a benefit for us humans


part two debate topic two


sure go ahead


okay I think , machines make humans and their jobs obsolete is something that we don't, state yet is something that we don't think it's somewhere in the near future but it's something that will eventually happen so take AI for example like one of those technology machines yes they helped they help humans to to reduce the processes to to help to do things


faster but eventually when technologies advanced enough these machines are just going to take over our roles and we're just no longer required say AI for example AI can actually already do many task, better than us humans so the number of fields where AI already rivals human experts is endless take for example risk analysis trading military applications driving driving


legal practice journalism and et cetera so any profession by good decisions need to make consistently is threatened, or augmented by AI as we deploy more automation to various processes we will also generate more data which in turn will make an AI even better so there'll be a point where even the world's top experts won't be able to outperform a well trained AI system


because the AI draws from the expertise of millions of people it becomes a hive of, it becomes a hive vein of humanity, ya


yes so that's , that's the main point of this discussion so uh you mention about the person carrying the waste for for us and then that's exactly the point because of technology with toilet system with sanitary system with machines uh


we no longer required this person's a bowl to actually healthcare to waste because everything is automatic it's just a button of flush or like even now the toilet is automatic so it just flushes by itself once we are done, with whatever we are doing so in that case it makes the person's job obsolete


and then as you can see where actually advancing so eventually there will come a day whereby we no longer require a janitor to clean the toilet as well because we have an automated machine to help clean the toilet on its own after after every use so


you can't see it now but it's not something that is impossible is definitely going to happen eventually and say for example and and food courts where where we used to have uh , cleaners to help clear the tables and clear the plates and to return it to the various stores but right now we actually have a machine where people can just return their own trays and then they were just you know


and proceed with the necessary processes without having someone to actually help clear the table because we're all doing it on our own so they'll come a point whereby we will be implementing this machines across the entire island and then we were no longer require, the help of humans to actually clear the tables


and then moving on to personal touch when you mention about personal touch yes there are jobs that requires human touch like say nurses and or but, now that uh topic of technology so there will come a day whereby our technology is so advanced that we may not even require nurses to actually help take care of the sick maybe our technology is so advanced that we


will no longer be as sick as we can be right now so with the advancement of technology maybe we'll have medication that will help us to get better and we will not have to go through a phase whereby we need someone to take care of us, and then or even so with the technology with machines there could be AI taking care of us dispensing medication when we need to and stuff like that so eventually there's no need for for for someone to actually take on the role anymore when everything can be automated


say for example even in china they have already started so something of human touch and and they are doing a way better job than a humans are that is they actually implemented robot cops so they have been deployed to survey highly frequented areas to find criminals and detect criminal activity


so the fact that these robot cops they're superhuman smart they can do a better job than us by detecting all these crimes against a database of millions of, faces faces, and tap into the behaviour patterns generated by tens of thousands of hours of observation videos so in that case they would definitely be better than us because they're superhuman smart


and also these machines they are strong enough they are way stronger than us so on top of being superhuman smart they are also superhuman strong so that makes us obsolete because we are unable to attain that kind of physical, physical strength that the machines could and we are unable to achieve that kind of intelligence because machines they can remember millions and millions of data


which we humans couldn't and we even need to rely on on our smartphone or organiser or or a meeting that we have like uh say next week, rather than remember it on our own and we can't even remember our own activities but the fact that all these robot cops they have a database so it makes them


really it makes them more reliable than us humans so I feel that eventually it'll it'll come a time whereby we were all become obsolete and you did mention about the fact that , when I I realized that my job is going to become obsolete from the from the implementation of technology I should be kept moving on to another


field of study so that uh I can still make myself useful, but the fact is that you know people take years and years of education to get to where they are, to to to get into this job this field and then to find out that their job is obsolete from the AI and then they have to spend a few more years on a brand new education on a totally different topic uh different


different uh fields of study and then what if then then they realize that !hey!, their job is going to be take taken over by another another invention of of technology and then they would just be chasing after something that they cannot attain because the AI is definitely way faster than us humans


so what do you think about that


right well in an ideal in an ideal world we'll have enough jobs for everyone , and but unfortunately with machines machines can do more things than people so maybe say one machine can actually replace hundred people hundred peoples


labour on on working on something so the fact that machines are replacing people we won't have enough jobs for everyone so that's definitely making everyone's job obsolete because there's only these many jobs that we can take on, from leftovers from after using machines and from our company commercial standpoint we want to save on money rather than paying labours for people for so many people we can actually just purchase one machine and then we can get the things done still so that's one point and I can see that you also agreed with me on the robot cop


it it actually minimises human error so in that case you actually makes a police job obsolete isn't it , yup, okay


part three debate topic three


are you ready okay, okay great I believe euthanasia should be legalized so imagine yourself as a patient was suffering an excruciating pain in your final days and yet


he still have to hang on to your life so allowing patients to end their suffering and their pain in final days it's not only morally justified but also essential to upholding the right to personal and bodily autonomy don't we all have our own rights to our own body so what do you think


ya well when we say euthanasia should be legalised of course that should be measures to to ensure that people will not use this uh will not abuse this


the fact that you can choose to end your own life probably there have to be measures taken to ensure that this person is in the right mind and they are clear on what they're doing and then obviously there are some other on policies to ensure that no people don't just do it


on impulse so I believe that it should be legalized because it gives dying people the opportunity to die with dignity allowing them to choose when and how they die and how they are remembered by their loved ones imagine, not imagine having to die imagine to suffer and having to die in a hospital and


letting your loved one see that you're suffering in your final days is actually heartbreaking to for for your family to go through as well as yourself to go through and by legalizing euthanasia it equates an option for dying patients


to end their financial burden in some cases where some patients are already suffering however they are unable to afford, the medical do do they can't afford their medical fees to actually get better or maybe they are at a stage whereby they can never get better but yet they still have to pay for their medical fees to continue you know to sustain their life


and so which contributes to despair and frustration you know from what they are already having from old age physical limitations and debilitating conditions so by legalizing euthanasia they can actually relieve themselves from this financial burden and they can also help their families relieve the burden


so to allow a terminally ill individual to end their life is the only humane and rationale and compassionate choice so the current prohibitions require a person with great physical or mental mental suffering to continue to endure their suffering against their wishes which cannot be right


why is it that be legalised abortions giving someone the power to take a life that is not theirs and yet it is wrong to decide to take away their own life so what's the point


the obviously if euthanasia is legalized obviously you will have to get the consent, of the person himself or herself, so in this case if the homeless man he's in a coma he can't speak for himself so this option is definitely not available for him so when I'm talking about euthanasia legalizing euthanasia we're talking about people who are in their right mind who can speak for themselves and who is


it's just in a right state of mind uh and they can decide that he terminally ill and I would like to end my life, so as I mentioned in my previous point so when it's made legalised definitely measures will be have to be in placed say you have to ensure that they are in their right mind they have to consent of their own or perhaps even a concept of family so if there's more than one person at least it's a subjective


agreement is a ya unanimous agreement that yes we are going to take away his life so in this case no one will be able to abuse this system as a form of legalised on suicide, but in fact we can look at it as uh you know honour I'm dying honourably and dying with dignity so


I just cannot imagine someone who has to go through all these pain when they when when they know that they are already dying but yet they still have to continue to endure all these physical, restraints and physical pain and both emotionally and uh ya and and emotional pain as well not just for themselves but also for the family so yes


of course if this is legalise we can't let a kid decide there are a lot of moving parts in in this kind of discussion so when it's legalise it should be heavily considered on


who are eligible for this option so obviously a kid who is immature who has has has, no experience of making their own decision or where's no you know commit like informed and sound choices then they are not eligible for this for this option


so it definitely has to be someone of a legal age say someone who can who's an adult and who can think for himself and obviously the condition has to be terminal , such that the doctors have or maybe not just one doctor but maybe like a few doctors from different different hospitals have all agreed that yes this is a terminal illness and there's no chances of survival and and they're probably counting down their days so in this case they could be given this option


you know to to actually choose how they want to die, so it's not about just , consenting to this is also about who, who is eligible for this option, so when is made legalise obviously there are a lot of points that we have to consider but then I'm not saying that it shouldn't be legalised I think it should be legalised but just that you know there're points that we really need to think about so that people don't abuse this system yes


seventeen is still not a legal age so like I said it could be increased to you know an even older age like say twenty one so


sorry come again


no I


ya actually in my argument I didn't mention that you know the kid can actually


say for themselves that they want to die they are actually not given this option so in my argument I was actually mentioning that you know they have to be of a certain age before they can , they can make this decision on their own and obviously not on your own but also on their family member so you mentioned about one parent disagreeing with the other well this is something that you know we can we have no control over but this is something that they have to speak


to each other about so if they cannot come up with a decision to give consent to this then this this will not happen in the first place, so ya I'm what I'm arguing is this option should be made available but


in terms of how it can be carried out is a separate conversation so I always believe that you know it is our body I mean, we we have the rights to our own body and whatever we want to do with it because it's our own life and our own body and we make informed and sound decision on what we think is right for ourselves we do not know what someone else is going through


and only ourselves like we know what we're going through so if I feel that you know I'm really suffering and I'm really in pain so why is it that I can't decide for my own, so so you mention about the fetus not being fully formed and all that who are we to say that they are not a living a living thing a living a life


well but who are you to say so just because they don't have a brain to think about it but it's still a live because it grows is growing inside your body so this is a separate conversation is like who are we to do decide that !hey! like you know the fetus in your in your womb


is not a living thing but it's not a dead at all it's still growing so is still a live a live is still a live so I be so, the fact that the fact that we you know we, we can take away a live that is not ours but we can't decide our own life is just doesn't really make a lot of sense like who are we to pray god to take away someone else's life but then yet again why can't I decide for myself like what I think is right for me


ya that is a lot of what ifs, but I guess euthanasia gives the patient the the decision to actually know what they want like right now rather than you know basing on all this what if so I feel that you know given this


option given this option uh it is if this is what the patient when you want it then I believe this it should be legalised and there's another, point that I would like to bring up which is uh the fact that you know


would you rather actually you know like would you rather just just, passed away like just suddenly in pain and all that when you don't have the chance you know to do what you want to do or rather than you know you can all this plan out you know like you know when you're going to die


and then and you can plan your own like say I don't know a farewell you know so that the loved ones can all be prepared mentally prepared you know to do see you to see you go through this last stage of life, rather than being unprepared and an unannounced and then to shock the entire family with this cold heart truth that you have already passed so I believe the is actually a better option for the family because they're all mentally prepared and they can all


say a a bond prepared good farewell for for for the dying patient, so this is why I feel that you know it's an option that we should really look into, yup


part one debate topic one


okay, so I start now, okay okay, okay so uh for the first one and the first debate topic is about the cross island line should be built under our nature reserve as compared to uh built around the nature reserve


okay so uh, what I found is like uh, from from, a study shown in the LTA the land transport authority there are four reasons on why we should build the cross island line under our nature reserve instead of skirting around


first off it will reduce commuting time by up to six minutes as compared to not building eight directly around the nature reserve, secondly it would reduce public transport rate uh transport fares by fifteen percent by being a dedicated directed route


this is due to being a shorter and more direct route whereby the savings will be passed on to the commuters , and , third the LTA also has suggested that this would potentially lower the construction cost by two million dollars which is approximately like three point five percent of the singapore's economy


so this is with reference to the straits times papers, and independent panel of advisers engaged by the LTA has also stated that where they they had to undertake skirting alignment, as compared to direct alignment cause they will be faced with more engineering challenges and setbacks besides that the the skirting lines skirting of the lines around the nature reserve would possibly also affect the residents while living around the area


and then lastly the, direct alignment choice would more environmentally friendly due to the lower energy consumption required this has also been backed up by the environmental impact assessment known as the EIA so ultimately choosing to built under under the nature reserve will


, will benefit in a way that they have this uh end to end one way journey time shorter by six minutes or ten per cent and uh no additional acquisition of, private property


the the residents around it, around them the residents, wouldn't be okay so the construction wouldn't be built around the residents and then there will, be no additional acquisition of eh sorry , and, then there will be unchanged targeted completion of


, twenty thirty and ultimately this will reduce the this will, result in fewer engineering challenges, so lastly the LTA also employed the use of third party specialist on how to best mitigate around the potential environmental effects that the construction on this project would have done on this nature reserve and judged it judged


and that a direct route will be more, it would be a more better choice so , all in all the impact on ecology and, biodiversity in the reserve would be reduced to negligible levels with adequate mitigation measures which is uh in a long


term is is for the better


yes, yes


sorry sorry can you slow down I can't catch you


they're


uh sorry can you repeat again because ya too a bit soft, and you talk very fast I can not hear you


uh I will say I will say that , the third party specialist uh has not be has not been is proposed, but has not been, uh really confirmed yet so I I think like uh


, a fare adjustment component which takes into account of the capacity of the transport services, uh would actually be discussed and because it goes through nearly four kilometers uh of unpopulated area under the nature reserve this is a separate issue which will be addressed uh subsequently


and uh okay and, and, cause uh as compared to skirting, alignment, uh I would say as compared to the skirting alignment uh the building under the nature reserve will


will result will reduce the, will reduce the impact on the ecology and biodiversity in the in the reserve , uh, with adequate mitigation measures so


uh, if you do skirting wise I think that uh, the impact, there will be an impact to the cost to the nature reserve the ecosystem, and the biodiversity system


ya, so , so ya


and uh oh right I was cut if you do the skirting if you go by the skirting alignment right there will be a possible rise in uh, engineering challenges which, a lot of uh, which uh almost uh which is like


I'm sorry, if you go by the skirting alignment there will be more engineering challenges, there it will give rise to more engineering challenges as compared to the skirting alignment, as compared to the direct alignment


then this will also result in uh this will also affect the residents who are living near the construction which is, unethical to do so, ya


okay


no but uh in the first place uh if you build under the nature reserve instead of around it you are actually mitigating the impact of the ecosystem and a biodiversity system you're not actually uh,


like you are not actually uh causing harm to them, and in the meantime skirting the, the reserve instead skirting as compared to, building under the reserve would make the route longer and more expensive


okay but then if you do the skirting method right then the, okay then it will cost the, no but okay you affect the biodiversity and the ecosystem but not as much as you do as if you built under the


under the nature reserve, hold on hold on , wait wait wait okay okay so if you build under the, nature reserve


you're gonna affect the the impact of the ecosystem that you are gonna uh impact uh affect is lesser than the, it's gonna be smaller than the impact you are gonna cause if you build around it


yeah and if you build around it uh you need to build you need to have addition you are gonna cause like, the you're gonna cause like uh


there there are gonna be a lot of, considerations to, there are gonna be a lot of factors to consider because like uh you need to think about the, the, architecture of singapore, so like you will uh you will


you will definitely gonna going to you are gonna you're going to definitely affect uh some of the MRT stations in in singapore as well because, uh ya I think like that


oh (oo), okay but ultimately the ultimately the LTA and EIA are still discussing uh as to whether to build under


the, nature reserve or around the nature reserve and they're, the, gonna weight out pros and cons and see which is, the best option to, which is which options are the best to build uh for build the nature reserve


yup, uh done


!huh! we're done leh ya [orh] cause, I thought uh three minutes is the plan and organize but we plan and organize


[orh] I thought I thought is like, can minus a three minutes cannot ah, oh uh cause like I think like that's not much to


elaborate already because okay so the, okay so if let's say you wanna build around the nature reserve and not, and not , under the nature reserve


you cannot put you cannot factor just the, uh just affecting the just the impact of the logy system and the, biodiversity system uh, together you also must consider like the larger


the more like, significant factors such as like uh it building around the skirt, if skirting around the reserve is gonna cost like the transport fares to increase, and also the


and also more engineering challenges, and, the communiting the community time commuting time for all the all the people will increase as well so is like, yes going to, take into account the considerations of all singaporeans


to like just to build around just for, it to build around the nature reserve, so uh I I will I think that, the mindset of singaporean like us is like uh we would definitely wouldn't want to


fork out more money and also uh because rush like because uh, err every time people need to go to work so like early in the morning the train has been has already had have all been encountering like several engineering uh several issues and making


part two debate topic two


okay


okay sure uh seventeen, right before you start seventeen


okay so the, debate topic two is about men being helpless in the face of climate change as well known the recent climate change is about the amazon forest right so


eh, the actions of humans have longed caused major climate changes to occur in one of the, one of, one way to describe it, is, it will be comparing it to a tumbling snowball that is gaining size with every moment so


in and, in a impossible scenario where the people, on earth uh, even, able to entirely, stop mess, emitting greenhouse gases altogether global warming would still steamroll on


, steamroll on without paused this is due to the fact that such large scale, changes take years and years for the earth to truly experience or respond to the reverse effects or reduce effects of long term exposure to the greenhouse gases so we've referenced to NASA


uh the global temperature is on track to rise by a, an average of six degrees according to the latest estimates, so furthermore, it is interesting to note that the that despite the growing popularity and reduction in


prices concerning the renewable products as well as the reusable, energy why why is there, so why is there like why, is that the world's, why is it that the world's, climate pollution


are still increasing incrementally cause I feel like this is due to the ever increasing global economy globalisation and a increase in the communal resolve, worldwide only further add on to the futility in trying to combat


uh, climate change so globalization also actually gave rise to the multiplication or transport networks in the form of road rail sea and air transport within and across national borders to further stimulate global activities so there is no stopping


there is no there's not a stop, to, globalisation and a increase on greenhouse gas emissions that precedes it so speaking of which in the industrialization as well as another massive contributor to climate change and it would be near impossible to halt uh production and factories as


it has to play a very pivotal role in a economic development of any nation so after viewing all these points uh, , I feel like one of the, one, edge uh I feel that I can actually uh one one can actually attest that humans are helpless in the face of climate change as there is no conceivable way to stop globalisation or industrialisation which are the main causes of greenhouse green gas emissions


so volume


ya I'm done


okay so uh actually, you said okay so what I I don't agree with you but then uh, at the same time uh, you know the latest, uh climate uh as a climate


cause is the amazon forest right so uh actually, this uh over, time the global climate has changed and, there are more deforestation which would likely which likely led to increase in temperatures and changing in the


rain patterns of the amazon uh, err forest itself and , with the, with the steps you you suggested that uh the world has been taking uh, there are no there are still I mean


climate change is still at large, and like the the steps taken to fight, against climate change is certainly certainly not enough, for the certainly not enough to overcome it so


so what are your thoughts about this


uh okay uh, so ultimately we all must know that uh actually there are, okay uh ultimately uh we also, must know that err human us humankind's are the main cause of contributing to the climate change


and , we definitely must do something about it so uh, also I know that actually there are thousands of, influential influential people who are working together to fright fight climate change uh such as the volunteers student leaders tribal leaders government officials and so on and


we must I'm I've I, they uh believed I believe that we must actually start to join uh the campaign or to reduce the carbon emissions and adopt ways to mitigate the negative effects of climate change I know this may have been put in place but I


hope that, uh there will be more, uh like people uh I hope that uh, more will be put in place to create more awareness uh so that, uh, people will actually, uh to start to act to it and and mitigate the impacts of global climate change ya uh and I think I and I hope that


and also uh some suggestions will be, uh to create, strong campaigns uh worldwide to call for greater access to renewable energy sources and, and uh


uh shift and for companies to also shift their power source to renewable energy and hopefully more business will actually follow the suits so uh, I know I, and also believe that however, uh the I also believe that


their efforts no matter how small it is uh, may may, may make a difference, to the so that there are more, uh, campaigns and projects that seek to recycle or reuse the trash and save energy and in order to reduce the on once and in in orders to in order to reduce carbon footprint and


and uh revive the environment, and save more animals and alter the wasteful lifestyles of the, people ya, so uh


okay so generally we are the cause of the uh we are the actually the cause of , climate change but, uh I just feel like, we need to start believing that our


we need to start putting in more effort and creating more awareness so that our concerted efforts will eventually bear fruits, and uh, we also should learn to, adept a present day realities while we take action because a temptation is never enough and


what we do is what, we should do is we should actually uh share with them start doing it now and not uh, wait until when it's too late and, then we start


ya, uh agree to disagree, !huh! really I say yours I never


okay so , hold on lah uh so


, yes I'm supporting your point of view


uh okay okay I don't understand that are humans are the main cause of, ya, us us humans are the err main cause of, uh


climate change but the both of the main, , is although we have been trying to although we have been trying to, although we are doing making our efforts and, and, uh adapting more adapting ways and raising


and creating campaigns to help raise awareness right about climate change but I feel that it's not enough, to change the it is not enough for us to overcome the this climate change


no but uh when it comes to like, helpless being uh like you see the north pole the polar bears in the


Antarctica and stuff like that the, they are all the ice is, melting over the years so what can actually, us humankind's cannot do anything about it


cause this cause is all the all the accumulated pollution are all the carbon emissions of the vehicles that we use are the cause of, are the cause of the ice melting


okay but I would say that ultimately right reusable cars are renewable cars are may not be sustainable


part three debate topic three


okay , for debate topic tree it's about going green makes good business sense, I agree to this statement I agree to this statement to a large extent because first off it makes sense for companies to go green as it helps with its public image and public relations


the green movement has been steadily gaining attraction over the decades and has and as more people slowly learn about the environments and how greenhouse gases affect the earth, a company that promotes going green along its line of work would be sure to attract a lot of sorry a lot of popularity which therefore attracts more businesses so another benefit of going green is actually also that


uh it can uh actually help to build up rapports and comederit commad camaraderie among its employees as it gives them a common purpose as well this creates a


healthy environment for its employees which transcends to overall workplace improvements so this may lead to better efficiency among its staff, which generates better profits for a company in the long run so uh that means also generates uh productivity as well so moving on


going green can also improve the efficiency of a business in another way through rates reduction by rates reduction this could lead to uh this is, this includes reduced operating cost and extra savings on expenses uh


uh, for example auto shutdown of lights uh, other utilities in the office can garners savings in the long run which can be considered significant as well other examples include trimming down on


printing and ink cartridge per se which cause a lot of departments that require daily printing of documents or you can actually uh opt for, documents or e e papers instead of, using printed documents and


tightening on these areas of, needless spending will give rise to the give rise to, sorry will give the company more room to spend on other areas of, priority, so now let's talk about the tax advantages and incentives that benefits the companies by going green basically companies get to enjoy government supports for undertaking environmentally sound practices


so singapore's own government offers NEA grants and incentive schemes to help business go green, add a final point uh final point to add on is that the ability to attract talents and employees too so for example millennials


have shown a preference of joining companies that emphasise sustainability in the workplace this means that businesses without such policies in place would find it harder to attract and retain talents besides that going green also sets your company sets a business


apart from others, and assure that their future employees, that they was they will also be a part of a positive climate change, so uh ya


yes thank you


uh okay so, actually when you say that, uh, when you say that going green may actually be expensive is true but, uh and finding new, vendors may require companies to spend a large amount of


time to uh look to, to search for but at the same time if you think in a larger in a long run, uh reducing, if you think in a long run this are actually the initiatives that needs to be taken in order


for, climate change to to to in order to better overcome climate change in the long run, so it's uh just like saying even though if you if like you buy reusable straws it may be expensive but then the cost may be larger but as compared to plastic straws the cost may be lower but


uh in the mean time, the the reusable straws will be sustainable as compared to the plastic straws and when you use plastic plastic straws they are non biodegradable so you cannot, uh, reuse reduce or recycle so uh ya you're gonna you are going to cause more pollution


and more pollution and, and uh give rise to climate changes, so this is not ethical, and


okay but when it comes to businesses right people, nowadays uh in this society people are actually looking at, those like investors, would more probably would more likely invest in businesses who who are actually taking more initiatives to


to, take part in uh CSR, because uh investors are, would more likely be interested in companies who are taking initiatives to help save the planet and not


, and not the other way round


okay but in a way, uh making going green doesn't require need not require, a lot of money for companies what because, in the first place uh companies will take initiatives and start or and begin


uh, begin these green movements uh from within so they will choose to opt they will generally opt for a cheaper alternative, they will generally begin with a cheaper alternative by reducing first reducing the carbon


footprints that , they may have contributed to the climate change this, such uh for example the paper's paper's paper wastage so uh companies could actually


send out emails and all start uh or revamp it's business err business work, I'm sorry uh business function uh sorry so companies can actually start off by, email emailing


start off by switching the alternative or sending or mailing uh paper work papers, documents in the form of printed papers to clients or their customers or their leads even so this is actually


not this is actually a cost saving alternative and is not expensive, because, and and it's not expensive and this can also in the long run lead to, or reduction in paper wastage which is part of going green as well so this is actually


the first step that company can take to, uh, to uh can take, can adopt as a form of sustainable strategy so this is not this may not be expensive, option


I'm sorry however, yes


okay okay when it comes to technology wise uh as we all know that technology now is advancing, uh and, most companies are it was uh and everyone is has a has a cloud system in every companies will have a cloud system in them so like


uh, if you talk about uh printed papers yes it's better because uh it comes in the form of hard copy and if ever you're uh if ever your computer your computer or PCs


malfunction documents can be uh cannot and the documents cannot be retrieved you still have the hard copy but, at the mean time uh, you are also, in the mean time you can also you can also uh in the mean time this will give rise to more uh


paper wastage isn't it, wait wait give me a moment okay so so right I'm, I mean okay all all you know the technologies are the nowadays advancing so


, and in future there are possibility of uh artificial intelligence so, uh I believe that, the companies would actually uh invest, invest and and


focus their attention more on, uh their technology area so that the, if in any case of any documents uh loss of documents they can still be backed up, by the system itself


so so and the priorities will be different because uh ultimately the business will want to, uh go adopt sustainable strategies, rather than uh uh rather than


save uh wasting the paper


what, that the commuting time will be reduced by six minutes that's true as I research uh besides that you said the public transport fares will be reduced that's true as well since the commuting time is decrease


uh but besides all the economical benefits that you have stated uh the the main priority should be about the the nature reserve and the ecosystem there uh despite the assurances of LTA and EIA


uh there are still reasons that we should not build the cross island line under the natural reserve uh despite the mitigations, okay uh firstly despite the assurances of LTA and the EIA there are still reasons that we should not build the cross island line under the natural reserve


uh as you stated there were mitigation methods however emphasized by one of the environmentalist of our nature group in the first place if you were to begin any development under or around the nature reserve this will potentially set a precedent for more development concerning, the nature reserve in the future now besides that the LTA did engage third party contracted specialists to investigate the impacts and ways to mitigate possible future problems


however despite that those are still projected uh projected judgments so is still not confirm and besides that there are also possibilities to unforeseen circumstances, even we are assumed that the even we are assumed that the mitigation measures are directly employed the unplanned events during the construction can still cause further damage to the environment


and for development this large which is one of the biggest in singapore at the moment the damage that could occur will be significant and irreparable uh besides that the third party's specialists employed by LTA, uh has not fully investigate on the construction works that will occur during the the building of the line uh despite the LTA stating that it will be stationed outside the nature reserve that can still cause a negative impact on the habitat in the multitude of living organisms that support


besides that we'll we have also yet to talk about the residual impact to occur they will strain the ecosystem of future, because this the reason is the this specific construction will take dozens of months and mitigation can only go so far to a certain extent


now besides the uncertainty regarding the loss of habitat just by construction, there's also the the cases regarding all the drilling underground the impact of tunneling on the hydrology and slope stability and last but not least uh as train stations require the use of tunnel boring machines this will create vibrations throughout the natural reserve that can affect animals


uh moving on uh now point is it's true that LTA did employ the use of third party specialists to conduct all the investigations however all these specialists do not have the, a similar standard in judging the future impact uh so what this means is that all the studies are not standardised and there will be blind spots in here and there and besides that some of the consultants themselves has acknowledged that residual impacts of works under the nature reserve


will be of moderate significance this implies that the the contractors themselves know that what they're doing is of moderate significance to the nature reserve in a negative way, uh


so what do you think about these points what can you say to these points, okay uh so you state that LTA has employed the use of third party specialists on how to best mitigate around the potential environmental effects however this third party specialist do not have a standardised system meaning that uh the way that they they they base their criteria on is not the same


uh therefore meaning that there'll be blind spots in some areas besides that the third party specialist themselves have said that, what they're doing is of moderate significance to the, the ecosystem there, so by right even if the LTA has suggested that what they are doing


uh, what that what they're doing is not the worst it can be is still negative in a sense so what can you say to that


okay uh fair statement uh okay but in the case of the the natural environmentalists uh the ones in singapore that were fighting with the LTA on the construction regarding this uh according to their studies they stated that


despite uh, if we were to skirt the line around the forest instead and it's true that it will disturb uh the residents living around the area however, the environmental impacts would be less negative or less significant as compared to this


the fact is because we are directly drilling under the nature reserve uh this can cause permanent damage such as uh degraded degradation in the soil stability or the


the slope stability because when you're dealing with the infrastructure under the nature reserve your you'll be affecting the surface as well uh besides that uh wait ah one second


uh ya besides that right uh when you tunnel underground you can have an effect on hydrology uh which affects the water on the surface levels


so uh according to, through some perspective you can see that despite skirting around the forest you may affect the residents more but you have a less lesser negative impact on the ecosystem so how how can you how can you reply to that


is the, is the comfort of the residents more important than the ecosystem that exists in the nature reserve


uh it is I mean what you say can be true to a certain extent however when you drill underneath the natural reserve you're affecting the infrastructure underneath the nature reserve and besides that tunnel boring machines can cause vibrations that affect the animals living on top so all this


you comply in a sense that that's the how to say [ah}, its construction can be felt where the animal's on top what, it's it's not like the animals won't feel any negative effects on the construction


ya yes


okay that's when you


okay as I stated earlier when you, deal with the infrastructure that is in the nature reserve what you're doing is permanent, because the train station will be there forever, and besides that during the construction, this would due to the tunnel boring machines this will affect the surface level as well as you'll affect the soil beneath


in terms of hydrology and the slope stability which is the topography of the surface on top, so technically as you said just now it surface wise they people may not view it as naturally like uh negative however actually is a permanent sort of damage over the years lah


so directly building under the nature reserve cannot cannot necessarily mean the best option lah for the nature reserve


ya okay okay


ya can submit right


ya the first few minutes after the save right you just started off is it, it's the first three minutes


it's


part two debate topic two


!aiya! so sorry I keep forgetting need to clap, oh ya


okay okay sorry I keep to key my notes ah, okay okay


uh okay good points uh let me, or as you get to a certain extent what you said can be more or less uh sort of true since uh the fact that uh global warming takes uh, it's basically large scale changes that as you said takes years and years for the earth to experience so uh despite that what we do uh will not really have a significant impact however uh I believe that despite all the significant challenges


uh we have the ability on some level to at least limit or avoid some of the worst effects of climate change uh, there are researches uh some steps that we may undertake or due to respond to climate change uh


may not necessarily be a solution but a form of a mitigation approach or an adaptation approach uh so uh technically we can either reduce the flow of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere or we can learn to live with the climate change there's already been set into motion


uh despite not necessarily solving the ultimate massive climate change changes that will take place in the future these are still pragmatic steps that we can take, another piece of knowledge that we can use to our advantage is the data that we have collected over the years that gives us a better understanding on how and why the planet is warming and how you can potentially change the trajectory we're on


aside from that uh over the years technology has advanced steadily and hence the emergence of potential solutions, some examples there under study by the european energy research alliance which is an association of more than two hundred fifty public research centres an improved version of solar panels that can capture nearly twice as much energy


besides that we are also they are also studying on new battery chemistries which can significantly boost the carrying capacities of batteries and we're also studying the methods of, producing hydrogen without emissions this green hydrogen could be potentially used to replace gas grids or even power ships and planes


last but not least, uh these studies are also focusing on carbon negative technologies which can be used to remove carbon dioxide and methane methane from the atmosphere which are some of the the biggest portion of the greenhouse gases, uh a final point I would like to emphasize on is that uh climate change is a truly global complex problem with economic


and social moral ramifications the solution will require both a globally coordinated response and proper efforts from the city for example public transport upgrades or energy efficiency improvements, uh despite all you despite you saying that men are helpless in the face of climate change if you can ultimately pool our united efforts together we can potentially make a difference no matter however small


uh what for, I mean who is said about default system is true since the uh since economists are uh how to say ah since the global globalisation uh consumerism increases uh and uh


and people start to uh wipe out forest for places of industrialisation uh it's true that uh we can't really technically stop climate, change however what we can do is uh what we can do is uh reduce at rate at which it reaches the


the maximum negative point or we can learn how to adapt to live with climate change uh, as uh, okay it's a ya it's true that uh globalisation takes place but with globalisation


uh more people are also now aware of uh the environment uh now uh, the there's an increasing popularity in electric cars as well such as tesla and uh with with advancements of technology the younger generation are also


more able to learn the the negative impacts that uh we people do that would have uh they will more or less contribute the climate change uh so yes there's good and bad uh in industrialisation and globalisation however there's uh


there's also like uh silver lining as well as more people are more aware of these uh changes, uh so I believe that we still can reduce the rate at which climate change takes place despite not being able to solve it directly on a short period


good does this mean you're supporting right


and so you're supporting my statement, since you steal my points I got nothing to say already


are you saying uh concentrated effort can make a difference so does this mean that you are supporting my point of view now


okay


uh as you stated earlier yeah it's true that it's not enough to, uh fix the climate change however climate change is also actually a a naturally occurring phenomenon, and besides that as you said again just now earlier when you support my view a concentrated effort still can make a difference so you may not we we cannot necessarily fix climate change but we still can reduce the rate at which climate change occurs


so technically human is not helpless in the face of climate change am I right


okay uh aside from that you can see there is a great popularity in electric cars and renewables and so can this not mean that in the future there will be a chance that uh we can potentially be all using electric cars and uh not using


uh, like uh diesel fuel or non-renewable fuel so, uh let me recollect my thoughts


part three debate topic change


just two still early


start with niche points already okay uh, points agreed uh those are some good reasons why a company should go green uh


however the struggle of going green will be the initial barriers and the gaps that the company must first tackle, uh some of these challenges are the time commitments and the initial cost, uh but company that decides to go green will have to commit time and effort to effectively implement the green initiative


to truly benefit from sustainability all its employees would ideally have to be involved and then that's still not concerning the time it takes for its systems to be converted, during this specific period the company may face difficulties in the application and conversion process which may result in subpar returns for the company


err talking about the initial cost uh as you stated earlier uh the government does help to offset out the initial cost for the companies, however it's uh still to a certain extent, uh we we are talking


about companies that manufacture products and are adapting to go green first off they will have to most likely forgo more conventional technology and purchase or employ the use of more eco-friendly devices which can mean extra cost in the future and besides that, this more advanced equipment will be likely more costly uh if you refer to a company that is not a manufacturer in nature but a company that for example


wants to utilise the use of solar power for example it does not come cheap uh despite technology advancing over the years the cost of solar panels the costs has not considerably declined, so it's still and is still considered one of the most expensive form of electricity among current technologies for electricity generation now aside from these uh initial barriers for companies wanting attempting to go green there are also other cons such as the rise of expense's and marginal impact


the switch or adjustment period can be can be expensive for some companies in addition it's important to take into consideration the applicable applicability of this renewable energy sources, uh we have to take into account the geography or climate of a country which is essential to determine what energy sources are available to which company uh for singapore cases we can see that it's a tropical country so


uh we may enjoy the benefits of uh solar energy however some countries that may are not tropical in nature may not experience the same benefits as us uh and additional point I'd like to emphasise on is the complex business models, uh a company's primary objective is always going to be making more money or more profits and by undertaking the task of going green


priorities and allocation of resources would have to be properly disperse, uh another con will be a company can be facing is customer backlash, even though customers will on the whole be happier than a company has decided on a green run it's imperative that no false claims are made regarding their green efforts or their products both intentionally or unintentionally this is not a greenwashing and can lead to a major backlash they found to


ya true companies that attempt to go green may also face the case of having to find new vendors, uh company may make an effort to go green it does not mean that their vendors or suppliers will follow these ideals as well for this reason organisations will need to research potential new partners taxi into their green values and this can take time and effort


ultimately uh in conclusion choosing to go green requires extensive efforts and dedication and not all companies can go through the transformation without losses in the initial process one way or other many green business were not expecting that people will come flocking to their products or services by going green


however if it suffers in the traditional business components in the sake of going green it can still ultimately fail, uh so with uh reference to the, the statement going green makes good business sense uh is not entirely correct


uh but, the main point of this is whether going green makes good business sense uh business uh main goal should be profits and not necessarily environment, that


uh okay, uh the topic is whether going green makes good business sense and what uh you said is true that it helps the, environment and the image concerning uh being eco-friendly however the thing is that example as the example you gave earlier talking about the metal straw uh in the long run yes you may save more money however the initial's cost is expensive and when talking about a company


the company's initial phase in converting to going green, that's usually when that company faces too much losses and makes the company goes bankrupt, so going green does not necessarily necessarily make good business sense when the conversion process itself can make a company really face losses or going bankrupt


uh you all the way you gave a good option uh however the, thing is that uh yes uh despite uh uh, companies being able to minimise or even eliminate the use of paper in producing documents or


other files uh as as what you said earlier uh paper is considered a traditional and everyone now is uh more capable with technology however the thing is that uh, data risk may be imminiant if software systems malfunction in laptops or computers


uh, no I I supporting your statement that says that uh changes may not have to be necessary big but can be as small as start reducing the usage of paper as you said just now however the thing is that uh what happens if


uh the software system malfunctions uh and, data risk is imminiant in this case uh the paper will have the the traditional paper will have to be in use ah cause we can't always rely on technology for this case


uh okay uh fairs fair point


uh okay uh, uh besides that point I would like to emphasis on your point regarding going green can improve the efficiency of a business, uh, if you talk about department wise


uh there may uh be a there may be a possibility that there's a decrease productivity productivity what's if you add recycling to your office you could uh you technically add more responsibility to the people working there for example if you're purchasing the


government is required to search for or verify the green state, that's all products and vendors they'll spend more time purchasing, then they could just purchased the cheapest goods and services, so with this added responsibility on your employees wouldn't this potentially lead to a decreased productivity when they have to focus on going green also


part one debate topic one


okay although , school may consider a small percentage, of, students for admission based on non-academic, factor uh but


err it is very subjective, so someone who is good in drawing arts it is against subjective whether ah is this, picture nice or someone play some music is so how how do we grade this uh non academic factors


and uh eventually when the student were to enroll into a former school, be it taking O-level GCE level O-level or GCE A-level they will be taking formal exams like chemistry physics or


other, subjects so at, the end of the day they'll be taking exams on academic factors so being good in let's say football


for admission into a school and then but the end of the day the student got to take a exam in a elementary mathematics additional mathematics, so how does this ah


gel right so also it, they will become very uh, personal like some student they will say that my son is uh, better, in football why did the coach select him not my son and so on so


err how do you uh have a standardized uh nationwide standardized uh grading for non academic factors for admission right, someone could be good in piano in enrolling into a school A but uh when he go to school B he was rejected


so how is the admission system going to work objectively compared to under a nationwide exam like PSLE, every student take a standardised uh national wide exam so at the end of the day it becomes very uh fair to everybody they know that they have taken a former exam they have gotten a grade


so they're entering the school based on the great that day get rather than how good are you in basketball how good is good, so, how do we uh justify this or will the coach be having some personal preference right so this will become a


quite unfair right if if uh I, so that err, at the end of the day if there's something standardised for admission then that would be good lah


so there's no no point like saying that uh this uh student uh can skip NS because uh there was a case where this uh, singaporean born Caucasian were he he play for Fulham United in uh UK and then he wanted to skip his NS


and also let's say even like uh Joseph-Schooling, so how good is good, right,


(mmhmm), so hi, is your handphone uh the part one debate topic one is still moving


realize that we got to keep on tapping it because once we stop tapping ah it will just, stop and then


ya it's recording still, never mind I can continue talking so my turn to talk then at least ah when she submit ah she has already speak a lot already, I can continue to talk a


uh ya, okay, okay, so,


so , back to this uh standardisation that I was saying was for example if let's say you could have let's say every uh high jump


hurdles uh must jump maybe one point eight meter then he'll be admitted into secondary school then that could be based on uh non academic factors and it can be, measured right something like uh sixty five mark A B C D or or if you could uh run a certain distances within a certain timing this can be considered as uh


non-academic factors for admissions but, other than these two at two or some other examples that can be measured objectively there are students who could be good at ah dancing ballet dancing or playing some music or drawing some arts so the


nationwide measure of uh how good is such a student for admissions will be will vary err based on judges, so if you see like different uh Olympic games or Asia games ah


different type of sports the measurement is uh, could be objective could be subjective right like uh <mandarin>武术:wu shu</mandarin> or or some other


this and that so you have a group of judges uh sometimes at the end of it there be uh discontent argument over biasness by judges from their home country


so although non, academic factors may be considered for admission it is itself uh cannot be measured objectively so as a result then why use such a measures for academic admissions


furthermore like, having sat before , at the end of the day is the student going to get a GC O-level certificate in uh sprinting in dancing or in uh music or is he going to get some grades in geography literature and other subject


so if he is going to get the certificate in uh mathematics then the admission criteria should be based on his PSLE grades or his secondary school grades in uh mathematics


so if if the student is already know, or the parents know for the student in day one that they're not sending their child to do O-level, uh geography then


he don't even need to be admitted to this secondary school or JC at all right he he could straight away take the extreme uh, join maybe ah NAFA arts or or or maybe enrolled himself into a soccer school


right then that would be the , better way than, since he already like uh soccer or like certain sports why make him go through a secondary school where he got to take some subjects that he doesn't like and doesn't he's not strong in and he got to use


non academic factors to get into this school to do academic subject, so he might ah by himself right, be brave take the plunge straight away


join a school offering what his strength is so in fact in countries like UK what happened is like if if they feel that their kids is very good in football, right they they really enrolled their kid in a football school and that become the uh main activity every days of the life of this uh group of very young children and


in fact academics become secondary whereby they do attend school the but the school is being tailored around for this ah main, uh activities that uh that is non academic


so I think singapore do have one like the singapore sports school which is trying to emulate some countries who who have a history of sporting excellence like Russia


like UK yeah they have been doings, something like that but so we I think we can only hope ah how it is at the end of the day we'll see see whether is the result good or no good


yeah, (mmhmm)


(mmhmm), but what I feel if I were to interrupt right , yeah yes so, well it may not exactly be so true that parents who are well to do are able to afford


better tuition and therefore get their kids to school ah because there are still be organisation who give tuition CDAC and all that to help the less well-off student to do well academically


so , even uh in school the teacher may also stay back and help those students who are willing to know who are willing to learn more yup so, of course ah wealth do play a part but having that said that doesn't mean that we can do away with uh academics grading for admission


just because of this that


oh


okay


part two debate topic two


chinese dialect


is it still recording


yes I'm still recording


you must keep on tapping onto this as you speak because once you don't tap every few second it'll get out that's what I experienced it's not five minutes then you must tap in fact every few second I need to tap me for my phone yes


couldn't hear you eh


okay, okay then we just continue talking on this ah


(mmhmm)


so what do we do in the meantime I can talk ah, actually looks like we will have to keep on tapping onto the middle of the screen every five second you don't have to uninstall and install ah as long as when you submit are you still in part two debate topic two


, oh okay, so I will continue to talk a little bit on this uh


uh dialects ah actually for Chinese dialects like Hokkien Teochew to be offered as a mother tongue language while that is a fresh new idea myself is weak in this dialect but


how do we write Hokkien write Teochew write cantonese in words uh I'm not too sure will we have at the end of the day still have to write in the normal uh


so if it's going to be a, ah after English after Mandarin and offered as a third language then, I I do not see much uh difficulty against it but if it were to totally replace uh Chinese as the second language then how is this going to ah workout


when when when these different group of student in Hokkien class in uh Teochew class at the end of the day err aren't going back to write in Mandarin Chinese


so the only difference is like they will still have to pick up mandarin just that they will have a little bit section where they speak in dialects


so, yes they they're able to speak to their grandparents and then Teochew are able to continue to speak Teochew ah Cantonese are able to still continue to speak Cantonese ah


so but the end of the day we'll doing this weekend uh, Mandarin further we'll doing this weekend English language further, if a student is a a high performer high achiever he could be able to do english chinese dialect or even french many language very well


but ah, all our population every single of them really that strong can do so many thing take ten subject twelve subjects very with very good grades or are we going to a


accept the fact that at the end of the day some students, ah you pushed them very hard there was err they can only do so much so how do we concentrate their resources or rather the children time the student time


should they be spending more time learning english spending more time to learning mandarin uh which will be more useful when they go out to work uh which is more useful


so at the end of the day while having some ah, continuity in uh dialect is useful keeping hold of their culture is useful uh but we may have to decide how much of this do we want it uh do we just wanna bare minimum or or or do we really want an


expert in Hokkien getting A one in Hokkien and then uh getting C six in English uh C six in Chinese, , are we trying to do too much is it necessary to do so many things


ah, will he be a jack of all trade and be a master of none there'll only be very rare cases, or rather you could have three hundred RI boys


uh three hundred RGS who get A's in everything hokkien teochew english chinese, but your neighbourhood school which is


what we need to be concerned of the general population mass will we be pushing too much to this group of students, and, ya why why not let them do other things other than uh


this, right, if okay so


I see I find that uh it could be a little bit too late ah because uh many as time passes the older generation has rarely err left, this war already they passed away already so now


people in their sixties they they are very good in English they speak English speak Mandarin so those those who are very strong in their dialect are perhaps in, their seventies eighties or sixties already so if you were to try to had conduct uh dialect classes it may be very difficult to get


teachers to ah conduct such classes you may have to go to China Taiwan Hong-Kong to to to find teacher to conduct classes in Cantonese Hakka Hokkien and all that so


could be quite sad that it has become unnecessary, to uh to learn dialect because if if you ask, children uh what is your dialect they will say oh my dialect is so and so but I do not know how to speak it or my family they


we I have a, Cantonese mother or Hokkien father and this child or will will will add this sentence but I'll, family uh even my fathers are unable to speak it


so, it is like saving, this uh dialect from uh extinction so whether it is a, ah


course, costly whether it is too much to spend to save this dialogue is a different story but getting students interested in learning this dialect may be a big challenge


so, and and they they they could have a, class system whereby if you speak good english and uh if you add it up with purposely speaking it with some slang that would mean good


so they they have a mentality that speaking dialect could be of a third class fourth class, even mandarin is second class so getting them to speak mandarin is already very difficult they feel that this is inferior if you speak english that is the in language


so will they want to pick up this at,


okay okay