so, uh a simple example of this would be, if you look at it you do not need anything material so, the term expensive implies uh some form of materialism so do you need anything material to be angry or sad


or depressed or feel any form of negative emotion probably not you don't need anything material to instill those emotions into you, so then I think have to be worth considering that you do not need any money or any form of materialistic or possessions in order to feel happiness either


so that's my view point okay so uh one of the, ways so another good question would be so if, happiness cannot be achieved the with money or with anything material then how can happiness be achieved


uh I recently watched a tedtalk by a one of one a Shaolin buddhist monk, his name as master Shee-Heng-Yi or something like that uh he talks about how to achieve your most ambitious goals or and uh how to


how to uh gain clarity and your decision making in order to achieve whatever you want to achieve, so the general case would be to make better decisions and to gain clarity and achieve whatever you want to achieve, he argues that you have to get rid of five hindrances and the five hindrances uh central desire


ill will ill will but what he means as by ill will as having a negative emotions towards any object person or situation, or dullness of the dullness and heaviness of the body or mind is the third hindrance the fourth hindrances restlessness and the fifth one is uh


sceptical doubt so he he argues that I think he says it's , uh it's ancient wisdom or I'm not sure what it is but it his argument was that, if you remove these five hindrances or you will be able to achieve whatever goals or you want to achieve and


I think it can apply to a happiness happiness is your goal than removing these five hindrances would, definitely help you achieve a happiness as well uh I I feel that the reason why we are, let's say debating about this or this topic is uh so popular today it's uh


because we haven't invested much as a society and , personal development and development of the mind, uh we have invested a lot you know education in terms of a learning about natural phenomenon for example we we learn about


all sorts of uh physics maths chemistry in school and yet we don't have a proper, framework of how to manage ourselves our mind our bodies uh, effectively there are some attempts made to it in terms of moral education especially in catholic school since and I were from oh


since we were from I was from a catholic uh education school they are some efforts made in terms of morality education but I don't think it's enough for you to, really be a master of your uh emotions and uh be able to manage what you feel and


have a great degree of control over it, err so, definitely you can feel uh definitely it's an inexpensive pursuit I must say that


this argument I'm saying that it's an inexpensive pursuit would be, is uh can only hold valid if, if a people assuming that people


are not the person in question is not uh facing imminent harm physical or mental harm, as well as a not facing a shortage of basic necessities such as food water shelter you know


it it is possible for you to be happy in a situation where you're facing physical harm and the abused or, or food water and a lack of food water and shelter it is definitely possible but it would be much harder to do so, but


assuming that these things aren't an issue for you then I feel that happiness is definitely not an expensive, pursuit at all


so how do we see the five hindrances I talk uh talked about uh, he uh he gives them the massage she gives the, gives a method for you to remove those five hindrances and now


one of the things he talks about that struck me the most is the idea of non identity, so non identity is a mental concept which refers to I am not the mind, I am not the body I am not my emotions but rather I recognise the three okay so what that means it's


it's a mental framework in my view which uh allows you to a separate your your decisions from your mind body and your emotions so, let's say you're feeling a angry or sad at a particular given point of time


you will be able to if you are if you are using this framework you should be able to recognise that you're feeling sad, and you should be able to separate your decisions or how you control the emotions from the fact that you're feeling sad so in a


an example of this is someone who's feeling sad for example is are visible behaviour will be, uh will be a manifestation of his sadness okay so if he's feeling said he might be crying okay so this physical behaviour


in this case which is crying is a manifestation of a sadness, but if you are if you are able to separate your behaviour yours your thoughts from your emotions you will be able to, uh change your emotion so if any given point of time you're feeling sadness you won't be able to uh recognise that sadness accept it and then


turn it into something positive because, let's be honest given the choice we would all want to be happy twenty four seven so if you are able to do that, you you uh if you're using this framework effectively you will be able to in my view you will be able to turn any negative emotion into positivity


and, in terms of learning how to do this I don't think it's I don't think it's an expensive process to learn how to do this either because


ah you look at the Shaolin monks for example the live uh live uh uh life for for life life of form, very simple life basically is a very inexpensive life where you know most a


uh ways you can consider is a rather inexpensive life they live and yet they are able to achieve uh, uh this frame of mind where they are able to control their emotions so well so I think if we have a proper education's uh framework in a


in schools especially uh primary schools and uh, secondary schools that really goes beyond the basics and like really helps you give you strategies and , ways to control your emotions and really teaches you more about your own mind and


how it functions it will uh allow you to allow you to uh achieve uh happiness no matter what ya so so now what do you think


(uh huh)


okay so the sense I get from your argument is that achieving happiness the way you talk about achieving happiness for most people is


via achieving something material so the path to happiness would be to , obtain the next big material possession in order to feel happy okay but, I think that is just only one of the paths to happiness that doesn't need to be the only path of to happiness


for example I can give you a simple example another obvious path to happiness would be a great sense of accomplishment if you feel like you have accomplished something, it doesn't have to be something material for for let's say a child maybe he does well for his PSLE exams okay its not something inherently material


but he does something or he works hard towards his exams, in the end he does well for it and his hard work pays off which gives him a sense of accomplishment and that, sense of accomplishment or manifests itself as positive emotions and happiness so I think material aspects


of life is only uh only like a certain path towards happiness but not definitely not the only path towards happiness, and I think they're certainly not the best path to happiness either okay so this brings me back to the five hindrances I talked about earlier


the first one was central desire okay so, the the sense of the come from the sense of the what you are your argument I I get the feeling that , most people are living uh, in order to fulfil the essential desire okay and there's central desires


somehow never seem to be uh fulfilled no matter what they do, so if you are able to remove your , if if if you are able to separate your goals from your need to


uh have central desires you'll be able to achieve happiness uh regardless of whether you have uh uh fulfilled the most uh, ambitious central desires, I'll give you an example okay so let's say


let's say we are on this path uh objective in this case as to be happy okay and , and why could central desire be a hindrance to a happiness okay so, let's see how we have a strong liking towards


food okay let's say I really really love food okay and every restaurant I go to, I I go there I really indulge myself in the best food I can find okay and, once I keep eating that food every single day and I keep indulging myself in it


it becomes an obsession for me okay becomes something that I obsess over it kind of becomes like an addiction, and no addiction in my uh view is good enable eventually stop you from happiness yeah


but I feel


ya that's that's fair but but I would argue that that most people have chosen an expensive path towards happiness you know


you have, because you have chosen an expensive path you know not because it is that absolutely an expensive process


debate topic two right so I will start again, diligence is the key to success


okay what is my view okay I would argue diligence is not really the key to success okay, a simple example would be in my view, pretty much everybody is working hard in today's day and age okay and I would argue diligence is more or less


equivalent to working hard so pretty much everyone you see around you today, is uh working hard okay for maybe maybe the cleaner maybe the CEO of a big corporation maybe the prime minister of singapore


pretty much ninety percent of people are working hard towards something, but if we define success as a achieving a status in society which, most people look up to to us so for example someone with a lot of money or somebody somebody in a position of a power let's say


somebody who is the prime minister of a country or president of a country if we look at those people as the symbol of, what it means to achieve success, it cannot simply be that diligence has led to their success because everybody's


ninety percent of people have diligence, so what separates these few people who actually achieve success from the rest of the people, has to be other factors and uh one simple example would be diligence, in the right there there's a there's a phrase that goes uh diligence in the right direction is fatal okay but the keyword here is diligence in the right direction


so if you don't have the right direction, your diligence can be absolutely futile, so diligence alone is not, enough to achieve success but uh I would argue it's definitely an important factor but by itself it's definitely not enough because if you don't have the right direction


then it it may well be completely futile uh what are we what are your views


(mmhmm) ya


so okay the the the term here is key so key would probably imply


the most important factor so what is the most important factor to success right so and your view it's diligence is the most important factor but , not necessarily okay my most okay if you look at statistics okay statistically


fifty percent okay I'm not exactly sure of the exact numbers but, my guess would be if you look at the population of india or population of africa and you look at the percentage of these uh continents and countries where people are living below the poverty line right


they have not done anything to put themselves in those situations so majority of the people , almost let's say around fifty percent of the world's population is living in circumstances that are not


that are not ideal to generate success in, the modern context of what we believe success is okay, so and then again these people have not , have not uh done anything to put themselves in this situation so it comes down to a matter of chance and a matter of it's a matter of probability


so the probability was just against them in against them and they was not in their favour and they ended up in these situations, who wasn't sorry


yeah that's that's great but I think by looking at people who actually achieved success, you're only looking at one side of the coin what about the people who didn't achieve success okay what about the


ya but, okay okay so if


the, okay so the question here is what is the key factor to achieve uh is diligence really the key factor to success okay so


if you look at it from the perspective of okay so how you're looking at it is, looking at people who have actually achieved success and then working backwards from there and seeing what they did to get there okay, but if you take that approach your leaving out people who did not have the opportunity to achieve success so


so why is that an issue okay so just because somebody did something to achieve success, okay doesn't make that thing the key factor okay because thousands of other people maybe


prohibited by something else which is the key factor so you're ignoring the prohibition because actually the key factor and focusing on a diligence which uh is uh


ya but then


yup but then again the issue with this analogy is that again your focusing you talk about rags to riches right and then again the, the issue I have with this it's again focusing on somebody whereas actually achieve success so somebody who went from rags to riches okay and


okay I'll tell you why so, I'll I'll tell you why


I'll tell you why so if, because there might be a more I tell you why so the there's a more fundamental reason people can achieve success in my view rather than just reason uh rather than just diligence okay so, imagine you haven't even eaten for forty days okay if you haven't even eaten for forty days your main concern is how do you get food not how to become successful are the


new companies start become the next uh Facebook or something like that okay your main concern is how do I fill my stomach so I don't drop that tomorrow that's your main concern okay, and now if you have fifty percent of people who are


basically just this is their main concern everyday of their lives their main concern is how do I survived tomorrow how do I, uh get enough sleep clean get access to clean water how do I not die of an infectious disease if this is the concern of the majority of the people


then it's fair to argue that people who have achieve success, had a certain aspect of luck in which that they had these basic needs fulfil for them, this be sake of uh uh survival needs fulfil for them guarantee to them


okay


okay so okay so okay we can uh I would probably disagree with you on this but okay let's ignore, ignore the people who are struggling and do not have enough food and uh then ignore the negative case of the argument okay, then let us uh because we can agree that uh diligence is key and uh walking in the right direction is key correct these two uh key and achieving success


right having having a plan in the right direction and uh uh diligence right but, in this case I would eh argue that having a plan in the right direction and knowing what you are doing is a bigger and more important factor than diligence


diligence is key but then uh, but then having a plan is a key that can open or locks or something okay diligence is not that key is is a, having a plan is a better key than diligence so, diligence implies hard works and a consistency you know working towards something over a long period of time making sacrifices all that sort of good stuff


okay but is that really necessary if you have a plan that can , that really removes diligence from the, from the whole picture okay if, if I can achieve success if I can come up with a plan that allows me to achieve


success without putting in so much effort I think it's definitely possible okay doesn't mean I putting zero effort no but, it won't be diligence in terms of uh you know long hours every day, uh waking up at six AM sleeping at midnight you know working non-stop


and uh having a very bad family work life balance you know not that sort of stuff


okay I'm not saying I'm not saying you get drunk everyday obviously you're plan there has to be a part of your plan you have to structure your life in a manner which uh, uh


so what is an


ya, okay so


oh, (uh huh) okay I I understand I understand I understand your point


okay so since you brought up the okay maybe it's better to look at it from a case study since you like case study so much okay, let's look at a mark zuckerberg for example okay mark zuckerberg we can argue has put in some diligence to achieve what he has achieved today and uh


uh) in starting up Facebook okay but was his diligence the key factor to a success I would argue not okay so, what was the key factor to a success as key factor to his success was his ability to, manipulate us I'm okay I'm using a strong word but manipulate the situation to his advantage okay so


if uh, if you have watched the movie social network all my information about mark zuckerberg comes from that movie so I'm not claiming to have personal uh uh perfect knowledge about him but, if you have watched the movie yes he learnt how to code yes he learnt he yes he was very smart less yes he learnt a lot about computer yes yes he put in effort to code the whole of Facebook okay


but just because you can code and had put in hard work and coding doesn't mean that you're gonna become the next Facebook, you have the, he had to work hard


okay, the founders the founders of Myspace also work hard okay so why is Facebook where it is


yes yes we are not we, we are not okay yes, (uh huh), yes


(mmhmm)


no it's like


I think I think to conclude I would say that, and yes you can but okay that's not what I'm arguing listen (uh huh), okay ya listen to me


okay so it so again again okay listen , listen so your


so your I I'm not arguing that diligence is not, it's not the key is like listen to me it's like saying, ya but it's like saying it's like saying uh


it's like saying it's like saying, it's like saying milk is the it's like saying milk is the key to bubble tea but that's not true boba is the key to a good bubble tea it's not milk


milk is important but, okay shall end it there


debate topic three, consider the view that efficient government is more important than democracy


right so, first maybe you should start off by uh defining what it means to be an efficient government right, uh, in terms of uh economics if you looked at it from a theoretical economic stand point of view


an efficient government works in a works to allocate, uh reallocate market free market deficiencies in order to maximise the welfare of its people so that's an efficient government so the free market itself


it's not always completely inefficient uh efficient okay and hence, we require a government that is able to recognise the inefficiency of the free market and work in the interest of the people and maximise their welfare


where the free market has shortcomings, so is democracy, more important than an efficient government I would argue no so democracy, is one of the tools in my opinion


oh right okay so


Sama lah so, democracy is more important than a in a more important than having an efficient government, so one of the key aspects of democracy is


let's look at it by on an example is uh is the right to, vote for example is one of the key, aspects of uh democracy most democracies pretty much all the democracies and the wall give each and every citizen the free and a


uninfluenced right to vote without any consequences on uh their well being they can freely vote for whoever they want so, why is this more important than having an efficient government okay so you don't necessarily need


need a free voting power the ability to vote, in order to have an efficient government it's possible to have an efficient government without having the concept of voting it is definitely possible but


is it helping achieve the goal of a maximising welfare for your society so the end goal of for your an efficient government or an or democracy, would be to achieve a maximum welfare for your society so


if people do not have the right to vote I argue it's not good for their mental wellbeing it's not good for their psychological well being and hence it won't help them achieve , maximum welfare because ever, or made them feel oppress that will make them feel like they don't have a say in society and based based on human basic human psychology we all crave freedom


we all crave to be free so if people don't have at least the impression of freedom which the democracy can provide, they will never truly have a maximised welfare they will never truly feel mentally satisfied


so that is one example and why I feel that uh democracy would be more important than, and a efficient government at least than the terms of a maximising the societal welfare of its people what are your views


but I would argue that your method of fixing society your way of fixing society is, just as important as a fact that you're fixing society okay not every method of fixing society is a


is a brilliant method okay for example uh you brought up china or like the other cases of this in history like, adolf hitler for example he had his view of how to fix society right but today we can


okay


okay so let's look at the case of china for example china is not a beacon of democracy but you have argued that, there are relatively inefficient it relatively efficient government right, so but, and you have also argued that an efficient government would be


able to uh generate strong economic growth uh over a short period of time let's say singapore or uh, china for example china would be the best example I would say so if you look at china but the question I'm asking is, that economic growth that prosperity at what cost does that prosperity come at what cost does that


economic growth come and we have to carefully evaluate what that cost was rather than just ignore it, okay because sometimes that cost would not necessarily be worth it was so for example you can see what china is doing now with a, with a with its Xinjiang province you can see what it's doing to the muslim majority uh


uh I'm sorry I can't really pronounce the this word properly but uighur or uighur muslims, guess throwing up concentration camps they call it re-education camps but let's be honest


yes but


yes I agree with that, I agree with that okay so democracy I won't argue is is the perfect structure for the government to and ensue but then again the question is, the efficient government at what cost does the efficient government were get okay so if you look


at any form of uh efficient governments that were non democracy is okay like china, is it nigeria nigeria maybe I think and uh any any any, government you can think of that was a known democratic


that's why I say china is the best example, okay so let's consider china okay china is clearly not


okay so clearly in china


yes but again again, yes but then again I would say is it worth to sacrifice those uncertain your


your uh uncertain times just so that you're certain time suffer as well also I'll give you an example, like we we talk about china a lot so china has achieved a lot of growth a lot of success but, if you look at the what they had to sacrifice in order to get there it's not necessarily the best way of doing it okay so


for example in the nineteen nineties nineteen seventies, you know after the cultural revolution and uh all of that good stuff, china was heavily heavily uh focused on manufacturing okay and


since they were not a democracy essentially they were forcing people to work in these factories and paying them literally with food coupons, a situation like this will never rise and a democracy and is is is giving people food coupons uh


yeah but, but (mmhmm)


okay so uh I respond to that by saying okay so saying that an efficient government is more important than a democracy, implies that in a way it's okay to be not fully democratic at certain times, in a in a in a


in a preference for being more efficient so you rather be more efficient than be fully democratic democratic every single time, and you rather completely not be a democracy sometimes if it means that that democracy is going to undermine your efficiency as a government okay


but I feel there's there's a problem with that ideology there's a there's a flaw in that thought okay because, to what extend do limit your democratic the democratic rights your people have okay, in for the sake of efficiency and if your if the limitations on your the democratic rights


go to work very extreme extend it can cause other problems, and it can actually lead to detrimental set off uh rather uh what you consider an efficient government, good way to look at it is


this is probably how a authoritarian regimes can possibly arrives okay so if you have a government which is efficient and a democracy, but then for the sake of efficiency you start restricting democratic rights eventually you might end up with an authoritarian regime


so I would conclude by saying that , , definitely


no because your argument uh, kind of a disregards the view what if you are an efficient government without a democracy but that's an extreme view that, neither of us seem to be taking so I I guess we can kind of agree on this topic that uh the democracy


it's important and efficient government is also important but you have to find the right balance but it's important to find the, right


today topic one, okay so the question of the debate is there is no such thing as bad publicity I believe that


that's true bad publicity is exposure and exposure means more awareness which eventually equals to more people in the pipeline, some brands even organise PR stunts in order to generate news companies often exploit publicity to create marketing hype about their companies and the new products that they want to launch


this publicity will ride on controversial points that will actually be good so that more consumers end up purchasing their products, for example Abercrombie and Fitch actually hit the headlines for restricting companies, who are too fat and old for purchasing their clothes


so that actually although you know a lot of people were upset about this it also affected their brand image in a sense that more youths who wanted to, be portrayed as skinny and essentially good looking purchase their products, also often celebrities make use of bad publicity to shoot to fame and be the talk of the town


this is especially pertinent in the highly competitive cut-throat industry that requires people to just be known and to carve out a niche for themselves, so really publicity any publicity is good publicity as long as your names are being talked about in the industry


I think


uh to what I have said about negative publicity can be boycotting brands I believe that, although that it can be a consequence of certain publicity


many brands do come back from poor image poor image brand image or bad publicity for example like, ah you mentioned tiger woods like although tiger woods did have a bad publicity with his personal life he is still he did get his


advertisements bag and his brand sponsorships as well as I think the public is generally pretty forgiving with negative publicity because the news cycle moves so fast, and there's actually quite a lot of research into this subject the economists actually produced a study that showed that with authors in particular bad reviews actually had a more positive effect on sales over short time frame


but this did happen with in cases where the author themselves were lesser known and so bad bad publicity actually helped them gained sales and, gained more interest into what they were writing about and I think it can be similar even with Breadtalk because of so few competition in singapore that despite them having


this bad publicity you would say actually more people are more interested to see you know what the soya milk is about and, going there end up buying other things as well


I believe like yes with your with the companies that you've stated I'm glad that you are able to say it is too recent to tell, I think it's the fact that with publicity and yeah it's just bad or good purpose in general , PR often is a kind of industry that requires investment and the investment is long term and so


even though there is the short term blunder perhaps that they have to pay economically, it could it be it it could they could bounce back from it actually gained way more than they did because of the awareness that has they've gained from that this exposure


I think, yeah I think it's just that, I think it's just this idea that publicity is depends on what you want from it like for some people like for example even kim kardashian and people like marie lloyd


publicity is they want publicity to gain a reputation and this like notoriety and so, even though maybe perhaps shareholders in BP and Toyota and the things that you mentioned have suffered falls in their market they feel differently compared to these celebrities who don't require to create a niche in their market


yeah I guess so yeah I think for me like the reason why I believe that there is no such thing as bad publicity is because it depends on where your publicity comes from


like also what actually is your the meaning of bad like it depends on who you are who you're managing or like to whom you're vulnerable and to the what story you're trying to tell, obviously there I think there is such thing as the only thing there is bad publicity is publicity that's badly done like publicity that's ineffective


but I think there is some kind of publicity which is somewhat negative in the sense that like it talks about negative things but it in, it's intentionally creates a news value of relevance that is good for the individual


I guess I too, yeah I guess so I continue with uh my point about how many brands come back from poor images of bad publicity, like the recent scandal with Louis Vuitton and a lot of people were saying that their ads were racist and


because for an because they were trying to target chinese consumers obviously that for that I would wouldn't necessarily say that was bad publicity just in the sense that they were, the intention of the publicity was good they were targeting their chinese consumers and also although they receive backlash in the moment especially like in social media


at the end of the day they didn't lose chinese consumers and people that did end up saying we will boycott it wasn't going to boycott them at the end so I actually believe that , yeah like I said the news cycle passes very quickly and consumers actually don't always act in ethical ways that they believe so


is that okay


ten minutes, ten minutes , okay uh I guess I'll talk more about how I believe that , uh yeah I believe that all publicity is good it because it is intelligent because publicity is often intentional


so in that way I believe that there is no such thing as bad publicity because they're all intentional


I think in a sense that you're right with BP is that obviously yes they did lose a lot of money but again it's what I said about the industry like, sometimes what people say as negative publicity doesn't actually affect them long term like people will still continue to use BP and yes it did


close them offer markets that are obviously very environmentally conscious but those people were already not using you know try not to use BP and such


I'd I wouldn't necessarily say that bad publicity is good for you but that, there is always some kind of value behind any kind of publicly especially like, with bad publicity what's the most dangerous part of it is there it's truth behind it like with tiger woods and like what you said like yes he did


you know his career was damaged because of the publicity but I'd I'm not I'm saying that it can it's it's able to be bounced back so it's not necessarily so negative it's just like now because, it's also good for consumers to humanise their brands and humanise individuals deal with and


I think a lot now people are a lot more forgiving with bad publicity I suppose, and I think bad publicity can also be turned into good publicity sometimes when the accusations are false like if, there's like this case in Pepsi which like someone made false accusations that they found a syringe in a bottle of Pepsi when which actually Pepsi was able to prove them wrong


so that actually end up Pepsi having to show their factory machines working quickly like how they fill up every bottles and efficiency of their product, and so it actually made Pepsi look even better cause it's showed that they can not only prove this consumer wrong but how efficient and hygienic their machines and products are


do you do you think that it's only because of bad publicity or do you think it shows anything into their product that they're trying to sell or their branding itself like did did they not have a good brand foundation to begin with, I think


ya I believe that like it I think it depends on the publicity I think especially these days people are more, unforgiving if the if the controversy is something that's offensive or, you know yeah and so it's not just about poor character but it's something that I guess is unforgivable in that sense


and that can directly affect affect sales just because people will refuse not to you know , be associated with your work, but often times if the product is, good enough meaning is the part of their


if they are well known in their industry they can easily bounce back and it's something that, most people know that you know obviously like companies aren't perfect, and individuals aren't perfect either and that they're bound to make mistakes because they are part of you know a part of hundreds and hundreds of people


yeah


and also, ya and also when you just think about like how saturated the media is in most instances publicity like actually isn't , being seen and actually most of your audience doesn't really care about you or you news I think the reason why people


believe there is so much bad publicity is because that's what people tend to focus on, when actually, and that's at so a lot of companies will use that like I said in my previous point that a lot of companies will use it as a stunt because they know that this is the way that like media will catch it


so you know like for example like you know, Milo will do like a truck or you know they'll do something like crazy and bad that people will think oh that's very controversial but so in order for it to drive consumers and, to drive traffic onto their site but it's not necessarily negative because it ends up having a positive spin for them


yeah, ya it depends on your mission objective yeah, ya I mean if your goal is to make money working within the media then controversy is your biggest seller and it's by far the biggest driver of traffic


but and that isn't honestly a merely a matter of personal opinion like people who fear another person's opinion about themselves just means that they're insecure about their point of view , so it's just let's say like people it's the way people interpret it and actually like even in, even in scandals like BP like oil any oil spills there're actually always people that support the other side


so that's why I think it's very dangerous to label something completely as bad publicity


yeah I guess it yeah it goes does go back to the point where like publicity and the fact consumers are much more forgiving and towards individuals like I mentioned with my authors and that, their sales actually increased and versus towards bigger corporations


what do you I'd like to ask you more just about like what do you think about companies having to spend millions of dollars, do you think that actually the fact that they will continue to earn later don't don't you think that it's actually a long term investment to have any kind of publicity


but at the end of the day, but at the end of the day isn't their companies selling their product not their brand


like I see your point that you know companies struggle with having, so they have fines to be in an oil spill they have a fine then like a government they have to pay a penalty, but do you think consumers really act on this boycotting and consumers really decide not to use this product just because of the company's bad PR like


especially I think in company like with companies like BP or even Breadtalk you know like I said like, they're such powerhouses in the market that often people will still end up buying from them regardless what is in the news about them


exactly and like Facebook for I would say you know all these Facebook bad publicity is people are reading it on Facebook itself so actually to them that doesn't really matter and it's still good publicity


debate topic two


my first point is that I believe that the main purpose of television, is to educate rather than simply to entertain, so for me I believe because the main TV is actually the most effective means of communication nowadays


so they're educating through the dissemination of information through news channels and even entertainment shows, for example channel news asia their most popular shows are the one that shows about current events breaking news


any of those and also even particularly because the main purpose of TV is to educate, channels like BBC which is the largest broadcast channelling news network, their charter in the united kingdom is that they produce education and learning and they they promote that as well as stimulating creativity and cultural excellence


I don't with your point I don't necessarily believe that is true with the fact that, television came about to entertain I believe like television was actually just an evolution of other forms of media


starting from newspapers to radio and then to television and so if you really think about the early days of, video broadcast your mind will think about presidents and political leaders broadcasting their speeches


rather than any kind of shows really that started from the theatre which then moved into television so , just based on that history point of view I don't think that's true, I also feel that even what your point about talk shop talk shows and other things


I think the beauty of television is really that they are suddenly entertaining while educating and, the point is that people like to feel engaged with what they're watching, and so when you think about talk shows you're actually not just being entertained but you're learning more about the celebrities


you're learning more about how the movie was made and the behind the scenes, when you think about game shows you're learning trivia facts, you're learning where different people are coming from often if you see any you know middle aged women they often have


their facts from trivia and game shows because they learnt it from watching the television, although they do find the programme entertaining that doesn't mean that they didn't learn from it and, I think it is actually the creative way to educate


I I actually disagree with that using your points about what you said with, you know that people should instead look at books going to the library you know going to a classroom I think the whole point of the evolution of television


is the fact that education is now more digestible, and more easily accessible which I believe you know of course people are more likely to learn if they can just switch on their television instead of, walking to the library and you know finding a topic the beauty of entered television and their subtle entertainment but primary education


is the fact that they are able to tell you things that you might not know you're interested in, as well as educate you in things especially in trivia shows the fact that you know you learn perhaps random facts that you might use later on in life


you you know you learn simple, math and things like that I'd actually like to continue to talk about, using education for children often children watch like you said children do watch TV


for a prolonged period of time and so television actually serves a main purpose to educate because, often children television shows actually assist their development teaching them either moral values math, simple english uh if you even just think about the most famous examples like barney or dora they're always trying to teach you something it's not just cartoons


so it's the way that information and education is displayed which is why television is perfect


I'm not necessarily trying to deny the fact that there is entertainment in television, because I believe that that is true and I believe it is true that, entertainment often is a secondary and complimentary part to education


but I that's I want to reiterate that I believe it's secondary I believe most television networks especially for children, parents do want their children to watch something that has some kind of value, I mean I think this even extends to you know games that children's play


ya you know there are the colours and bright but they teach it teaches them like shapes that matches up teaches them different words , and I think at the end of the day the parents are the one that allows the children to watch television so they do choose programmes that are educational


that uh provide some kind of value and in turn those are the kind of programmes that are made as well and the kind of programmes that are shown, I can't think of any examples of programs that are simply to entertain


even thinking about sesame street they do do entertaining songs, but often those songs are yeah about arithmetic about numbers about, values that kids want to learn about and it and even if it is not explicitly saying that


when you think about characters like barney it's the kindness of barney and , how he portrays himself that is education because, parents and TV programmes want their children to know that kindness is the right thing to do to mimic these television characters


but how exactly are user finding entertainment is entertainment, to you it in the visual aspects or like what means entertainment or something that provides no value except truly just beauty and


laughter or other things


I think what I would say to that uh my rebuttal to that would be that, the evolution of television has now, incorporated different types of learners and different types of education , and so bringing it in point your example of news channels doing


pictures and documentaries I think it's because they've learnt that people are more a lot of people are inclined to do are visual learners, and often learn through pictures and so education has evolved as well to not just mean just words or descriptions


but rather through actions like through what I said before like with kids like barney you know is an example of, demonstrating to someone how something is like not necessarily telling them that this is what they have to do, similarly I think you know visual cues are a form of education I think people can learn


uh more about history or more about current events by looking at the visual aid


but at the same time do you think that people actually enjoy being educated that there is some kind of, ya joy in that and that, you know a lot of times because like I said this education isn't just being talked at them often it's


being displayed through various things like pictures or videos or creative just creative examples, the fact that people are learning do you think that, people enjoy that I mean I think I would cite uh the huge amount of viewership for trivia shows and game shows I think


people watch that not just primarily to see whether contestants win, but they also watch it to learn something to see whether they know the answers as well, and the process they are being entertained because they're being challenged and


I mean the main point of education is engaging and their brain is being engaged and I think that can also just be a distresser and a form of entertainment, how, sorry I was going to say like how do you feel do you feel that entertainment has a direct correlation to viewership


in in what way


I think in that point perhaps I agree with you in the sense where, I believe education must also be interesting in the sense that like entertainment or education can involve some kind of shock factor


you know when you think about like news programmes the reason why you know some breaking news programmes are more interesting than others is because, breaking news is often you know the biggest stories or the most interesting ones the ones that you know people really want to know about


and and just because it is entertaining doesn't mean it's not educating, which at the end of the day is the point of the news programme it's the point of the channel, and it's the point of how TV even came about it's the fact that people


want to be told about what's happening in the world and that's not an entertainment it can be but it's not the main purpose and I believe that, ya although as time goes on viewership is, be slowly and slowly becoming correlated with what is the most funniest show or what is the most controversial piece


read consumers even if they don't realise it consciously, choose to be educated and desire that kind of engagement with their television programmes, do you have uh any yeah


yeah I agree with you in that sense that like, education and entertainment have to be work hand in hand and they both cannot exist in isolation , I still believe that the main purpose is to educate but I believe that


that the most effective kind of education is one that is mixed with entertainment, and with the friends example yes people laugh and, absorbed the information and but they're ya also related to themselves and how they feel in personally


debate topic three, I'll start again, so this debate topic is about do films offer anything more


than an escape from reality so I my point of view is that films do offer more than an escape from reality, the fact is that films leave viewers with something intangible, fictional films most films are fictional


and they usually not just teach viewers anything tangible but they always leave viewers with something more than that and more to dream about, through the themes explored subtle social commentary and character development, viewers may be able to realise something or start pondering over certain collective beliefs and big topics in society


such as the nature of humanity where we're headed as in the future , for example in the movie inception which is a a movie that not only received many critical awards but is one of the best high rated


movies by consumers the main character dom cobb is a skilled thief who steals valuable ideas from within the subconsciousness of others, through this process of manipulating other people's consciousness, he actually deals with some conscious issues of his own which viewers can relate to


he does so by burying them in a prison he created to dump them in and locked them away without intending to address them, this only taunts his issues more surfacing in different ways, this allows viewers to learn that avoidance is never a solution to anything and that the best way to deal with our issues is to deal with them straight on


often films like this allows consumers to think about something afterwards, to relate it back to their lives and links with other philosophical contacts and, so it's not an escape from reality because it most often makes them think about their own reality


I think my second point would be the fact that, films are often commentary on issues that are relevant to our reality, even if that's not super explicit for example when you think about


recent movies as well as come out you think about the little blue book and things, like that you would see a lot of uh movies recently are talking about race, which is a huge thing currently you know in our political climate


also you would think about for example, uh princess mononoke and the show okja both of them incorporate fantasy themes which you mentioned it like your superheros, however it does serve to point out the impacts of man's actions on our environment which is a very real problem in our world today


and it also still interacts with things that are, relatable to consumers for example eating meat or you know having pets for example as well as zootopia, although it you know it is a animated film and it is set in a city of anthropomorphic


animals it has an underlying message about racial profiling and it's just displayed in a way that is digestible, and but it's still completely relevant to our reality,


but it's also, it offers more than that because it allows people to see beyond that and see the multiple levels of what film can offer


I understand your point on the fact that, CGI techniques and visual effects do create , things that are come to life for example animals that talk or objects that talk and those necessarily aren't escape reality


but in addition CGI technologies also create realistic images of people, landscapes and events that are real and they are not just imaginary, and often that is to intensify the experience for people


to embrace the realistic aspects of a movie, as well as be educated about it you know in history for example the fact that, a recent movie by , by wes anderson can depict a historical moment well shows people that


the movie does make sense so their daily lives, I'd also like to say that films often do more than entertain but they also educate, some films are set in foreign countries and they reveal the culture and the way of life of societies that viewers may not be familiar with


through a depiction of characters that follow a different economic system, speak different languages wear different style of clothes, such films actually expand the viewers knowledge of the world by adding a new and foreign reality to their consciousness, indeed like some of these films do pique an interests in international audience and attract tourists to immerse themselves in such


lands and contacts that the movie portrays obviously most the most famous one is crazy rich asians you would say, yes although it is fictional it didn't offer an escape for reality in the sense that people


we're allowed to explore different cultures and then became interested in it, even old movies like lawrence of arabia and aladdin it takes viewers to the vast expanse of the desert , so therefore movies are more than escape from reality because


it enhances the knowledge of other worlds that are yet to be explored by the viewer, but are still somewhat honed in reality


so do you feel that viewers viewership will go up, purely if the film has nothing to do with reality, or do you agree that films must offer some kind of realistic elements for the viewer to relate to


in that sense I would say I disagree with you even using the example you used of the avengers, you can say that the reason why viewers enjoy it so much is because although they are fantasies superheroes


they do retain human values whether it is the bond between each other, uh the love the love triangles the anger displayed between each other and also I think it's a good thing to point out that


in the avengers movie often human beings are someone that they're trying to save, there is rarely a movie including superheroes which does not involve any kind of humans, at all but they often always play a factor in it and I think it just goes to show that


viewers although they do enjoy an escape for from reality they want more than that, they want to feel like they can relate to it whether it is through a legitimate individual, or through humanistic values like love and affection and


things that they can then in turn put into practice into their own lives, this goes into my next point which I believe like films portraying traditional and cultural practices, which remind people of their roots so it provides more than just escapism


some examples is actually a recent film in singapore called seven letters, was a singaporean drama film comprising of seven short stories to celebrate singapore's fiftieth anniversary, which reminded singaporeans of their origins and it broadened their mindsets by exposing others' different cultures


if you think also in the singaporean landscape you will think of famous movies like ah boys to men , which received such good viewership because, although it was entertaining singaporeans could feel related that a movie was expressing an experience that they did go through


ppb) despite being exaggerated and of course there was use of CGI and such, it was more than escape from reality but it allowed them to relive something that they already went through and actually, engaged themselves more with realistic elements of the film


I'm I would say I would say with the


with the examples you pointed out with lord of the rings I mean yes you're right they don't necessarily have female I mean, human characters but they do have they do demonstrate human desires and human, evil for example when you think of


dobby and when you think of these kind of things you think about greed and you think about you know, the human need for friendship and , you think about the human need for wisdom and adventure which is all things that people do relate to in their regular life


although it is maybe perhaps an exaggerated and different perspective it is something that is relatable, do you, I guess I'd like for you like do you believe that , when you mentioned before CGI do you believe that that's


that was invented and that was developed purely because people wanted more fantasy and more something that was different to what they were experiencing


yes I think I think you're right in the sense where like, yeah CGI has definitely increased this idea and possibility of fantasy movies and, superhero movies which I believe do offer an escape from reality but I believe it offers way more than that in the sense that


it will always go back to the human experience and when you even think about CGI , doing on in animate objects if you think about toy story and things like that obviously that's super unrealistic


but it was the reason why it's so well loved it's because it still taps into the human desire for affection and, the idea that you know humans are curious and, in their childhood they you know had these dreams and they related to how andy felt and said things like that like I believe that


those things are universal and so they're not actually an escape for reality, but it's that sentiment that people enjoy in movies and that sentiment is extremely important in films and that, offer is way more than just anything that is unrealistic and completely completely out there


when you think about films that are based in fantasy worlds like superhero movies they actually have increased sentiment value because, people need something else to get attached to the film because nothing else is realistic


I I am agreeing with you in the sense that I do believe films are an escape from reality but I believe that they offer more than that


and I believe that what they offer more than that is the fact there is human sentiment and that it will always that side that is not just one dimensional that is not just an escape, that is not just entertainment but rather it's dimensions of sentiment and


education and entertainment I believe your points are true I just don't believe that they stand in isolation, yes I believe there's other factors that are complimentary to it and that I feel like


films I mean from its evolution films really are just a different type of theatre often people come to films to, have to experience catharsis to act to cry to laugh to express their own emotions and it's not necessarily


and those emotions aren't just coming from the movie but coming from their own life experiences and coming from, reality and coming from sentiment which films do offer as a gateway to that so I believe yeah films offer more than an escape from reality


debate topic one okay, okay


for that point on like publicity being always good


I I somehow like disagree with it because like negative publicity can lead to like consumers boycotting brands and like, a negative brand image is difficult to come back from examples are like from, the tiger wood's scandal or like BP deep water oil spill horizon of which like there was a very big oil spill and


a lot of uh companies boycotted like BP in terms of their petroleum or like other examples are like companies, sometimes like lose trust or like credibility of the consumers especially if, like this particular company has always presented itself to be to have like a clean image


so like any breach of or like change of this uh image may like result in like consumers boycotting the company, and corresponding fall in revenue or like prices I guess like once, once trust is lost it's often like very hard to like catch back or like restore it a a common example of this would be like a Breadtalk


soya milk saga which tainted their public image, of their products like many of the consumers have taken issues online and even threatened to boycott the company for future purchases, due to like the unethical mislabelling of their soya milk purchases


so I feel that I negative publicity can lead to like boycotting of brands


I agree to charissa's point to a certain extent but like charissa's authors' point


but not so much with regards to a larger corporation or company, because companies tend may have to spend like millions of dollars, trying to rebuild the public relations glitch especially when they have like been swamped with like all the negative news or like


during this short amount of time so this is especially so for like companies, that have been facing like lawsuits about their business practices and they have to like bounce back or like try to recreate a certain image, an example would be recent example would be like the noble group which has been a target of like short sellers due to the lack of transparency in their accounting practices


these accusations come at a high price of them needing to hire a top accounting firm PWC to clear their air, millions of dollars have been spent to buy back their shares in order to prop up their share prices, which has uh plummeted almost about like seventy percent ever since the scandal broke


also another example would be like Volkswagen which like had a recent scandal and controversy about them cheating on the fuel emissions test, they may potentially face a fine of up to a billion dollars and, recent company results have shown the fall in sales of their sales and their bad PR is life threatening to the company itself


though it is too early to conclude that the fall in sales is due to the negative news it's highly possible that Volkswagen will face increased competition to win back the trust of the consumers, charissa


yeah I guess like all in all there's like good and bad points with regards to like whether publicity is right for some companies, depending on the nature or the size of the company or their how they can personally be so


yeah depends on their position and what they trying to achieve out of it


yeah it depends for mine is I guess like it depends on the type of uh the nature of like, the publicity whether it's detrimental to a company or is it like a positive to company so it really depends


so from my point of view it's yeah it's negative side of it


cool cool let's wrap wrap up this uh debate topic and skip to the next


oh, oh how how long has it been, oh ten minutes only okay I I didn't I didn't know okay let's continue,


I mean it depends because like for example the BP oil spill it wasn't intentional but it, costs the company to lose millions even though like you say like bad publicity is always good, but if if like let's say if a company goes into default or like goes bankrupt because of bad publicity then there is no like bounce back


from that so I don't see like how every kind of like publicity is bad good publicity


yeah yeah


ya but what what I'm trying to say is that what if a company goes into like bankruptcy because of and not be able to bounce back because of bad publicity then there's no like, there's no right in saying that there is bad publicity or


like bad publicity is good for you you know there's no like coming back from that


(mmhmm), yup


I see yup, from my part yeah I understand that like you say like


publicity can affect someone's uh some a company or an author's view or like or their perspective on like how they're going to fend or like performance, of how they're going to fend the short term but with regards to being able to come back there's


like for example the the the the the company I was talking about noble, which defaulted because of like inaccurate uh accounting so they went bankrupt because of like , and this kind of publicity on that led to their downfall even further so like a lot of people like selling


selling off their stocks or like bonds quickly with guts and this was mainly due to like bad publicity so I don't see that


I guess it was mainly because of their their own fault but like bad publicity like aggravated, their role in terms of like them being bankrupt


so that led to their downfall


(mmhmm) yeah


I guess it all boils down to like how good the the company can like manage like uh their publicity or the bust because like in


people really do have like short short memories with regards to like remembering the type of like publicity or the marketing materials, and tend to like move forward towards the next best thing whenever a a new bust or a new face changes so it really depends on


the people's perception of how how they view or like how strongly they view a certain topic with regards to publicity, and depends on and depending on that it will change yeah


yup, yeah, so it really depends on nature and actually how big


yeah yup, , yup


(mmhmm), I think like that that's why like fame is a a also like publicity leads to fame, and like fame is a like a double edge sword with regards to how forgiving the public is towards the negative news or the positive news, so it really depends on how


why and how the public is so forgiving towards some individuals or some companies while so heartless towards some so there're like certain reasons to that lah but


I guess but what if they are not able to bounce back or what if they do not have the resources to, to try the like garner garner like proper publicity or like save themselves from bad publicity


so there's a issue that might be detrimental to a company's health, and they might not be able to bounce back, from that


but if if their their their company cannot survive they're not able to sell their brand or their company so without , with bad publicity that might lead to, a company being uh bankrupt


I mean I think that is true because like for example the recent news of of like Facebook not being able to like take down or like not being not willing to like censor like


some like fake news or like improper messages from like various sources and that to like led led to like multiple companies like boycotting, using like Facebook advertisements so but even though they boycott Facebook advertisements


only like a small amount a couple of like hundreds of millions losses due to this kind of , boycotting but in general like, they are earning a couple of maybe like three hundred million from just Facebook advertisement so like a small amount of companies are boycotting


the Facebook would just lead to not much like impact with regards to their bad publicity


yeah I I I beg to differ a bit sorry


okay


debate topic, two okay why don't I start this time so the question is consider the argument that the main purpose of television television is to educate


rather than simply to entertain, so my stand will be that is false because , there's like rising trends of like this news channels incorporating documents and pictures, in order to make like news more interesting and easier to absorb just serving as a form of entertainment towards like people


just to like get their garner their attention or like make them more excited to watch the news so they generally like cherry-pick the type of like news they want to show, so I believe that's a more in terms of a form of entertainment rather the than a form of like education


okay I guess for me would be


I feel that like television has always been used as a source of entertainments since its very first few days so like, since its inception and it's, very difficult to break from this tradition and like over long periods of time many people have watched news and movies on like television not to mention like game shows


talk shows or like contests which are very very popular, therefore like television has become an like indispensable part of recreate recreational lives for of like large number of people, which leads to like a form sort of like a entertainment entity instead of like


something to educate so I feel like television are are broadcasted mainly for the sole purpose of like entertainment


I guess for me I I do not believe in that because, with regards to like conveying knowledge or like learning something television is not the best way to like convey a knowledge


because in order to be like well educated, we should search for uh for like information in like books or like more detailed because they are like more detailed and organised, as as compared to like television and moreover like a class environment is like more suited for like


learning environment because it is important to be as it provides us with like real interaction with teachers and like, friends and we can get like feedback from our teachers and be exposed to different viewpoints during discussions with friends


and this will actually help us improve our think way of thinking to a greater extent than just sitting in front of a television and just watching, like stuff, and, all these made me all these like facts made me believe that television is not effective means of education as it may seem from your points


but like however like in order to , sustain like a children's like attention with regards to how their learning ability or like, them being glued to a television I guess the entertainment aspect must be used and or like they must be


be inclined to be willing to watch the TV as week as a forms of like education but like generally like most kids, that's why like most television shows are cater the entertainment aspects with regards to like bright colours toys or like


roles being uh being like cute or like funny or like, them being like talking like slowly such as like sesame street or blue blue's clues so there's like some form of like adventure or like entertainment aspect of it, so not just I've that's why I feel like the entertainment aspect is more


the that I'm I feel that like TV is mainly for like entertainment for these children and not not not with regards to educating them


I guess, my point of view like would be from a pragmatic point of view, in order to like sustain people or like sustain


customers to watch television you have to use the entertainment aspect of it and, therefore it should be the main priority with as compared to like education so like media providers have to sustain viewership


of the masses, and through the only through the means of entertainment will they be able to like sustain viewership, and this is always been the drawing line where profits limits the extent of like educational television shows or like how well or like what's the nature of how


how well can they educate individuals, or and this is especially true for like local television channels with like low viewership, where they have to make their shows more entertaining in order just to stay in the industry


there has been like a rising trend that like news channels incorporate documentaries and pictures in order to make like news more interesting, and easier to absorb test like serving more of of a form of like entertainment


yes I guess it will be the second point that you like hinted something that, attracts attention without like purposely like providing like any some form of like value


as compared to some something more of like a educational like more of like words or like, or descriptions of like certain stuff so, I guess entertainment is a form of like


uh news or like article which doesn't have like much value like ingested in it


I guess visual I look at it as a form of like attracting like the multitude of like audiences, because in this like modern society, there's a lot of pressure in like everything being like so fast paced and it is like urgent to find like a venting a vent to like fan our like frustrations or like pressure


so to have like some sort of like for entertainment activities such as like TV programmes would help , somebody like distress or let's say like such as like talk shows on like every sunday night you can make like audience laugh


and bring happiness to them uh and I I feel that that's more of like a entertainment aspect as compared to, trying to educate someone cause when audience like enjoy the show with their families or like friends, they will never blame the talk show for lacking like educational like functions


yeah I guess sorry continue, uh definitely I do


with regards to in order to like to have viewership on like news or like TV TV channels


the news has to be like some form of like entertainment even though they they would rather , display or like broadcast something that is more entertaining as compared to something that is, not so or like something that is so dry


so I believe this kind of things is like more suited for like entertainment as compared to educational


yeah I guess, I guess like more often then not like the education like function and like entertainment function has to like, are usually like hand in hand which makes like one programme like always like educative or like and like entertaining at the same time


for for instance like, for like drama, like even like comedy series such as friends, they make audience laugh and at the same time they enable people to think of themselves, about their lives at at the same time in that case it's like


undeniable that TV dramas are like multi-functional and does not create just one purpose but both, entertainment and education


, ya mine is the other way round I believe that both have to work hand in hand but


entertainment is more important with as compared to like education or like, entertainment is main the main purpose of like television as compared to education that's my point


debate topic three


for my point would be, I guess like uh many films rely on, audience suspensions of disbelief to portray a fictional world


hence allowing some viewers on an escape from reality, an example would be like superhero movies such as like guardians of the galaxy, which is a very famous movie by marvel, and it's like highly relatable with regards to like superheroes like possessing superpowers which we may wish for


to help us deal with like real world issues such as like depression or like oppression and we would like emerge victorious from those issues, and that's why I believe it's very appealing to the the viewers as they see it as a form of like


escape or they see it as a form of like chance did, that they will be able to do it in the real life situation as when like heroes can do it in, heroes that face like many odds can do it in like superhero movies so I feel like they're linking the dots with regards to them being able to


achieve, what the superheroes tried to achieve in the movie and be able to like solve the problems and there's therefore I believe that, films offer escape from reality


I I guess for me I feel like films, only entertain I believe so because like film techniques


have been developed evidently seem to only target towards like increasing entertainment factors of like viewers, so like increasingly like sophisticated techniques are used to like delight or entertain audiences for for instance like animated films


which uses like display of like rapid movements in their outworks usually like more vibrant or like, dynamic as compared to their live-action counterparts has been more like widespread, this is the advent of like CGI computer generated imagery also made it possible to do like spectacle more cheaply and on a massive scale


CGI techniques and visual effects can be used to create realistic images of people, landscapes and events both real and imaginary and also to animate non-living items such as like Lego


or like creatures, furthermore the with the rise of three d technology and films, once two dimensional images projected on a flat cinema screen has like come to life in like full three d dimensional glory, much technologies were created just to make the movie more entertaining than they actually


are giving them a sense of like a a better movie experience or like a more live experience and seeing like given the amount of work, uh viewers given the amount of work put into making a film interesting and entertainment


the sole purpose of the film is just to entertain, that's for me


I understand your points but I still feel like films, the film the purpose of like films are just to like entertain this is because like , popular films such as like often have like fictional plots as you were saying like your first point


and and imaginative story that happens in an imaginative settings detached from like real life situations or scenarios, as such this only like offers like viewers an escape from reality allowing them to like immerse


themselves in an imaginary world and ultimately entertainment from doing so, for example fantasy fantasy stories such as like harry potter or lord of the rings series, bring viewers to a whole new world like literally a magical world or like a a world with like monsters or like ox where like characters and beings such as wizards dwarfs


goblins non-existence in the real world, become a reality like science fiction and cyber punk films such as like blade runner and inception allows us to get a glimpse of like, alternate realities of what the world could be


whether in the past present or future such like unrealistic films will not have taught, viewers any real practical things and hence just a form of like entertainment for the people's enjoyment process


I guess it must have like certain like form of like


entertainment or like story plot so it really depends on, a certain story plot where which movie has for example like the avengers like series, so the main purpose of like this series or like the main like gist of this series is


a group of like heroes like bonding together and conquering and saving the the world from like natural , monsters or aliens so I guess they do not have to, be educational with regards to like having a part of history or part of like


, of like a part of history or part of like uh being able to understand, what the current like real life situation is but just to have like a concrete entertainment form of like backbone of the story


but like for example like show like films such as like guardians of the galaxy, or like lord of the rings those are do not have like any like human interaction or like human


interaction or like behaviour with regards to most of the the the the characters or the scenes and how do you like justify that these films


I see I see


yes I I do agree with that because if what's the purpose of like inventing something that is like more like different or more like


uh like different or like makes you like wonder what are like other parts of the world or like, something that you have never imagined before so without like CGI you cannot it's very difficult to like imagine this kind of things so


by the use of like CGI would definitely like, the main purpose of like the creation of CGI was just to improve like viewership or like entertainment purposes in my view


(mmhmm)


so you are saying it is a form of escape from reality


so like not specific to like in a form of like escaping from reality but the like other factors as well


I see I see, I guess to that to that uh even though I agree that it might bring about like certain factors such as like


escape from reality would be the main topic or like the, the main the main concrete idea from it because, without what's the point of like having like films or like


films or being able to look at like , of at films because , it will be just a form of like entertainment process so being able I feel like you do not need to the


the personal aspect to it as you said like forms of like sentimental value or like just, a form of like human interaction but just a escape from reality


okay done, part one debate topic one


okay uh we are debating about environmental conservation effort today uh nothing more than token of gesture , a token of gesture I typically agree on this because environmental is a crucial uh topic nowadays it affects the


uh, our future generation in general, and it will affect them very uh uh how should I say , uh, very , uh tragically because of what's happening now and uh it start it is


good that we need to actually be aware and uh, you know, keep uh to ensure that we uh conserve uh electricity or you know do the recycling uh programme


uh do I need to continue until seventeen sorry sorry , okay yeah so I think it's a good thing that we are actually go doing something to help uh the to safe the environment not only for the world but for our generation in time to come


I think I'm good


oh okay


okay, okay on the other hand as a human being we also we tend to have this , uh how should I say it uh we tend to have, , a give and take issue is like you know


I do something and I want something back in return so I believe environmentally uh conservative for instance let's take for example some , uh, organisation let's say some uh product they actually encourage uh some uh uh their customer to actually uh recycle their bottles and then on top of that uh recycling their


uh, empty bottle they actually as a token of appreciation, they actually uh what they do is they do give let's say a sample of uh their product where we could actually try so that actually also help to uh help the environment to save the


earth and also to educate uh our future generation that you know they should be helping the uh uh the I mean the uh the the the world to make a better place for everybody to live so I believe a token of gesture does help and you know people do look forward to you know


receiving something new or you know uh receiving like you know oh okay that's nice this is something new that, you know these uh companies actually uh launching and is environmental friendly and it's uh, it doesn't harm any animal when they do the testing


so this kind of token gesture it does help, uh you know in uh educating uh our future generation to know that you know uh you know, what goes around comes around and you also need to you know as a a a a a reward to them that you know they got a better cleaner place to live in and you know a better climate uh instead of you know now we are and and uh facing global warming


so that could be uh one of the token that you know people like us our future generation would actually uh, uh uh enjoy to live in so that's my my my my my my argument


, uh


uh, no I disagree with that I think they also wants to make business at the same time they want to be you know environmental friendly, so that's why they actually launch all this uh, uh recycling product uh recycling programme for their


customer, and uh you know encourage customer uh not to uh you know uh not to have any uh plastic and and also to bring their own bag when they go shop uh shopping or grocery shopping so ya


uh uh I think it does help because you know


if if you notice that when you you you shop in in in one of these uh you know uh, shop where they if you have let's say a certain amount of recycled bottle that you shopped with them or the product that you used with the the the this uh shop


they they actually you know appreciate it and I assume they will actually recycle them and, , in return they give you a a sample or sometime they do have like uh recycling product where they can actually give you like a small token of uh appreciation let's say encourage uh the customer to actually instead of using


, plastic fork and spoon they use uh you know a recycling fork and spoon when they go out and eat or you know when they bring back, uh food so


it's a , yes it's it it is what you supposed to help to save, the earth and then uh in return you will get a cleaner uh uh, the fresh air cleaner environment and yeah that helps


, but as act actually as a token of appreciation appreciation from, from from you as a a a let's say as a buyer, I'm I think it it does you know helps in


uh, creating a good clean environment and let's say, you know I'll even even if if if in in an organisation if you go out to help to clean the beach, uh I I'm sure your organisation will give you a token of appreciation to say a a big thank you uh for helping uh cleaning up the beaches and and you know that helps and you feel great about it don't you and and on top of that they will also give out


you know some certificates or uh you know certificates or you know some uh what do you call that uh, uh uh uh give a token of gift environmental friendly so that you know to encourage you to be more


uh environmental friendly


, no always okay some big company I mean some companies some organisation they do it on a yearly basis or as frequent as possible you know uh depending on the organisation how how heavy environmental friendly they are


so I I assume that you know some organisation they do it like a twice yearly event for you know at the same time they have this get together, the event and and you know cleaning up the uh the the the the beach or you know


to help uh the recycling program uh so on and so forth so I I believe in uh this does actually you know helps to encourage uh an individual to to uh help save the environment and to conserve


you know uh whatever that, that is good for the uh our future generation


, okay well I believe as as a in general that you know it does, uh you know the efforts that,


in every organisation that is helping everybody in this world that you know it would it's good to have some sort of a token of gesture, to to ensure that you know we have a good a clean uh


uh fresh air err, comfortable place to live in for our generation to to come, and , uh I believe this is a, is is is a is a good move that you know , that we have this token of gesture I mean not only


for us but also for the world that you know you know hopefully we could actually reverse the uh global warming so that the temperature doesn't get too warm in time to come so I think that that's, affect everybody across across the world


okay for instance take one country that is actually uh they are pretty environmental friendly and and and I think, I believe if I read somewhere that their government are also encouraging and uh they take for example uh Amsterdam they they try to minimise uh you know auto vehicle so practically ninety or eighty per cent of their


uh, uh uh uh people they they cycle to work they cycle everywhere so bicycle is their major part of , a a mode of transportation so I think that is a pretty good example that we should actually look at and you know which we could actually


uh, uh take it take it as an example and encourage uh our future generation you know to want uh help to save the earth, by having less err you know uh carbon monoxide or whatsoever gas that is been produced that is harmful for the for the uh earth


and also on top of that as a token of gesture they get a healthy lifestyle because they cycle everywhere so that is a you know it's a win win situation


, (mmhmm)


yeah, okay I agree, partially agree on that, right yeah so again uh I mean, it is it is a good thing that you know uh I think in general every human beings they do want to


have, something you know they do something good and they want something good back in return so I believe that you know with that, it does actually boost, , everybody's uh as an individual that you know to help


to save this uh environmental conservation effort today, so I think that's what they should do even like you know our resident uh they do try to help the community by uh what do you call that uh


uh recycling having recycling programme and then they will give us you know vouchers to actually you know uh uh, a a voucher to actually in exchange for our used products that we want to use uh to recycle so that helps actually you know and you know you you get something in return


even the Karang-Guni men they also you know they also recycle the item either they recycle or they will fix it and repair it and they resell it again so , and you know and they get money out of it so that is also, part of a token err you know more than a token gesture because they got something back


you know they got they got their cash and they also got the used item which they can actually recycle and and you know sell it at a a a better rate


, ah yes you have to pay your bill so that's why whatever you do uh make sure that you know you have environmental friendly appliances that says energy saving


so that helps in a that helps a lot in our household one's you know you save your utility, bills second is, you, save okay finished already


okay, part two debate topic two


okay should poorer country address environmental issue, when the basic needs of their people are not being met, ha okay yes they should regardless how poor or how rich their country is they should actually


uh have this environmental issue because, one when they are poor to be honest I don't think there's nothing much they can do instead they do collect rubbish, I mean like you know take example if if if uh nope I don't say they take collect rubbish they would collect let's say plastic tins and and you know whatever that they can actually find to actually sell it off so I believe


they are already you know doing the good deeds because , being poor, they do not have any you know uh other resources or you know mode of income so by actually collecting


such let's say boxes uh plastics and you know uh used item that they can actually recycle and and you know sell it off, to to to earn an extra income which helps them on a daily basis I think they are already doing it and I totally


uh agree that you know they are already helping to save the environment so uh I believe you know , that's, already helping uh with what they are already doing by saving the earth by collecting all of these uh used item boxes plastics you know to to to sell them and get them recycled


okay talk you mentioned about haze I don't think that haze I mean yes they do come from, poorer countries but it's not because they are not educated because they are educated that's why they know that they need to actually uh fertile the land and uh you know to speed up the the process of growing their their crops so that's the reason why they they actually


have, that process to actually to fertile the lands so that they could produce better crops and, that's a little bit selfish and I believe education I I I I that's what okay I have to agree that you know they have to educate the the the the citizen


but, for a poorer country you know education, it's it's not reached out to each and every individual because probably one is they are too poor to go to school and you know uh some they need to actually support the families so support the family to to uh to meet


uh you know so that they can actually have food on the table for each and every one of them so, it is a little bit uh uh sensitive to say about education when not not say that they do not want to go to school it's because


, they do not have the means because they need to support the family and and they need to, have uh, you know somewhere to start it's not that they do not want but again, for a poorer country they are already having uh they are already there's nothing much they can do because


they are too poor to actually uh to do anything because uh I don't think they they do have any you know uh, big missionary machinery that is actually uh harmful for the harmful to the to the to the environment because


what they need to do is uh they are already helping these uh the the the country by by you know uh I can say that they are actually cleaning up the street by collecting all these and, and uh they are already having helping to save the earth by collecting all this used item and and and exchange them for money and uh


it it starts as early as morning early morning until you know evening because they try to collect as much as they can so that they can collect as much money as they would, they they can to support the family and, what the government can do in that those countries you know uh uh uh like what you mentioned is about educating them but


how and you know uh whether the individuals do they want to be educated because if they could not meet uh they could not feed the family how are they supposed to you know survive


and and because because of all these they they they they go they, even go to uh to the to the I I don't know somewhere like you know where they collect all this rubbish so that they can pick up whatever they can as much as they can to to uh to to take and sell and those seller that actually collect all this item


they tend to recycle all these items so partially I must I mean ah I must say that they are actually helping the the the the country and also , uh helping the country to save the earth and also uh to put food on their table and


ah I'm not sure if they do actually help the the economy because you know by selling all these used products, you know to to the to those whoever that collects all these uh recycled items


okay okay yeah probably, yeah the big the the the the organisation that is actually uh producing all these uh uh I mean producing such issues yeah probably they it it it they need to actually uh address such issue which I agree but again


you know , they also need to I mean as a as a country and organisation they they also need to boost the economy and uh of that country so of course they, try to minimise as much as possible on how to uh you know reduce such uh unhealthy I mean it it uh reduce as much as you know uh burning all this tree to to actually


uh to make sure that they have a land that is uh very uh healthy so that they can actually produce more crops and uh because if they don't do that then how are they supposed to actually uh


produce or you know make uh maximise their profits and also to help the government to boost the economy produce to have, work for these those people who needs to work although it is unhealthy but


there there there should there are I believe methods that, that they they can actually try to reduce these , air pollution but I believe those, uh big companies that that are producing such massive uh


production they they try as much as they can to actually reduce the the air pollution, in the world especially I don't think lately you have, had I mean like you know there is no haze in in in uh occurred nowadays so uh due to the


current situation which is actually a bonus for all of us, and I hope that actually helps, the the the the environment to take a break this year


well okay back to the uh poorer country address the issues so because they are already poor and I don't think they are actually contributing uh a lot of uh you know uh a lot of uh pollution


or the uh that is is unhealthy for the earth but instead I think they are the one that are trying to help to reduce such pollution because, they don't really use electricity so they they rely so much on you know whatever that they have let's say for instance they use a torch light or they use the candle


to actually uh at night when they are you know at home, they don't really consume a lot of electricity so I think for them they are actually, they are already helping us to save the earth and also that you know uh they know that uh the earth is actually sick and the global warming is actually hitting them very badly


so you know being poor themself they are already helping to conserve the environment without the be uh without their own you know without the government support because they they rely on themself


so basically I actually uh believe that they are already helping us to save the earth and by not polluting the streets the rivers the whatsoever because it's those uh


those who are more well-off or well-to-do they are those who are actually contributing to such uh, you know , uh pollutions uh in the region or in the country that they are in so here the poor people are they are the one who already


trying to help to save the earth and they learn they use a bare minimum uh items that they have that that that helps to to to keep them uh to stay uh you know alive to survive


so they they try to recycle uh reuse recycle uh reproduce items uh that they can actually, invent on their own to to you know to uh to help them to to live on a daily basis


so there are a few that that I actually saw on social media where this poor country or this poor village young children they actually invent something that they've found on the, uh, uh street or in the rubbish chute you know to produce a little bit of electricity or you know that is actually uh quite an invention so


uh I believe that the poorer people or the those countries that have, a poor , uh support, or or those country that are already poor they are those group those minority are already trying to help


the the the the the world by uh saving the earth because they use bare minimum item they don't use they don't drive they walk they they don't use electricity they use you know candles or torch lights


, you know they don't use uh what do you call that clean water they just you know use the water that they can recycle from the river so practically I believe these are the the the the the people the poor country uh citizens that are actually


helping already helping the country or the world to you know save the the earth


okay finish


part three, part three debate topic three, K


okay the real heroes of environmentalism are rebel I agree with this statement , because , without rebel how do you get the attention of the people that you know you


are trying to save the earth so I agree that these real heroes are environmentalism are rebels,


, okay alright I think the the reason why I okay I I I strongly agree that this, environmentalism uh rebels because you know they stand on their feet and and they I mean they stand on their grounds and they want their their their voice to be heard of what they want what they want


uh, to do with the environment for instance they want let's say , because sometimes some, organisation they would you know ignore or you know they will just okay I hear you but let let me you know I will think about it and I will work on it


but for these rebels they are the one the the superheroes where they wanted things to be done then you know to take action as soon as possible and you know you work on it as fast as possible not to you know


uh you know wait for you know another topic or you know when you have something comes out and and you bring that matter out I mean I, think if you want something to be done there and then it is good to have somebody that is who stands on their feet and they know what they want and they want it to be done


instantly because of course you know you not want things to be you know uh to be put on hold, and and you know nothing will be done about it so I believe that you know these people that they are they want things to be done as soon as possible you know to to make sure that you know things are proactive and and and and uh we are working on it uh


and and it's actually a an occurring thing and people are very consistent about what, they want you know others to do and and this project uh this this this project that you know they are serious about what they want uh they want


the environment or they want others to hear uh you know to to to act on it so I believe they are you need to have someone like that you know to be very persistent uh you know to have someone, who is a environmentalism


who who actually stands on their feet and and they want to be hear and they want action to be taken so that you know things, would move otherwise you know if you are someone who is quite okay alright we wait you know I don't think things will actually no action will be taken


okay, okay ya they these these these these celebrities they are just a spokesperson they are trying to, project that you know yeah I am doing my part that you know I am trying to save the earth as well as you know


uh, yeah I mean okay they are but you know for someone who really cares about the earth, they would actually go all out to you know to ensure that you know they they they they are protecting the environment that is you know from you know anything from the animals to the uh to the air the pollution


so you need somebody who who who is really very persistent and who who who stands on their rights and they know what they want and they want action to be done as soon as possible I think that that is actually, to me is is actually a good thing to change the world because without these uh without these heroes you know I don't think uh


things will actually work, so I I I totally you know a a agrees and believe that, such heroes uh do needs to have such uh rebels rebellious traits this is because they want their voice to be heard and action to be taken and they mean business and they are not you know some sort of like okay I stand here


to to you know just like the celebrities they are uh showcasing that you know uh contributing, to the world uh to contributing to the uh you know let's say they they contribute funds to help to save the earth so


what can they do with the funds I mean like yes they can build better roads a better high quality's uh uh what do you call that uh, machines to help you know save the earth but, it takes a true hero someone who actually you know it it it takes someone to actually walk the dog or you know talk no walk the talk or talk the walk ah something like that


you know so, I believe such such heroes do actually uh need to be very uh you know stand strong on their beliefs


okay alright I got to disagree the talking about singapore okay so for instance nowadays okay uh in the I mean in this country because okay for instance they have, cut, out they have cut a lot of those forest to build new houses so they built new houses for humans but they forgot that they are taking away houses


for those animals that who have actually stayed there so when they cut off all these trees the forest, you see wild boars you see snakes you see, all sorts of animal coming out from the forest and they actually wander you know around