SUMMARY OF OPENING OPPOSITION

Leader Opposition : Yoo Jin Lee

Deputy Leader Opposition : Kelly Sung

 Leader Opposition
In the beginning of the speech, the LO refuse the argument of Prime minister,
by saying the argument from PM is misunderstanding the entire debate. She said the
debate completely flawed, there are illogical argument made by government side,
“first is social norm is so crucial and so important, girl has dominant role, supporting
feminism, this norm claim still exist in their side, second is problem solution
completely mismatch, because abortion is still exist, we don’t need put humanity on
technology to achieve the solution, and last is the entire debate not mutually
exclusive, status quo still have abortions, dead centers or fertility centers”. From that
we can see that Leader opposition is trying to attacking the core idea of the
government side. Next Leader opposition namely 2 main things, one of that is the
death of humanity more harm than just humanity. From here we can see LO start to
construct her opinion. After that LO start giving argument about why evolution is
perpetuation, she explain it, then she explain what will happen to our world if
humanity not fertile, system of nation world would work under anarchy, people has
no incentive to live and many more. At that point the LO is giving their argument,
also giving an illustration about dystopic community and the effect to strenghthen her
argument. Moreover she also explain about right to life, stigmatize suicide in todays
society, she said suicide is social failure and then about movement against
cyberbullying. Last LO ask question with hope will answered by the next speaker
from government side.
In My Opinion, Leader opposition is really good at this debate, she talks fast
but still clearly to hear. in my analysis she does 3 things, first is refutating the opinion
from Prime minister, she refutating well by attacking the ideas from prime minister
and said it illogical. Second is she constructing argument, at that moment she giving
some argument related to the motion. While giving argument she also rejecting the
POI from government side. But at end of her argument when talk about right to life is
a bit not relate to the topic where humanity no longer fertile, especially the
cyberbullying part. Last is she try to refutate again the argument from government
side by asking a question. Overall She talk in time 5 minute 47 second.

 Deputy Leader of Opposition

The speech from deputy start by refutating the argument from the government
side, she said proposition just like drawn basically prepped under the wrong context.
She said concept of fertility itself actually encompasses the entire idea about a child
being born but the government side talking and acting like all is true feminist and she
don’t understand why their side put unfairly in first place and enforcing it. She also
said that government side argument is inefficient and not respecting woman, instead
taking away the woman’s right, they should be actually making the condition woman
more comfortable and less pressuring. Next she still refutating the argument from
government side that basicly assumes wrong that social norm are so prevalent while
in the quo is basically the main issues of this debate. After that she got POI from
deputy prime minister about how individuals would reach fertility centers when their
existing stigma of being infertile. After that she answer the question and said girl
gonna seek those fertility centers first regardless of that kind social stigma. Next she
is construct a an argument about repercussion that gonna happen when human basicly
no longer exist because no one fertile and no new generation. After that she refutating
again by said government can just assumes the remnals of humanity will magically
solve themselves.
In My Opinion Deputy Leader of Opposition is doing well too. She did much
refutating while she speak, and while she refutating she embaded a bit of her
argument as a point why government side argument is wrong, showing what the
misunderstand and wrong. She’s giving a chance for Government side to give POI, I
think this is not effective because give opponent side to attacking and make our focus
mess because thinking what the answer of the POI and wasting time a bit too, but it
also can be plus point if she didn’t have much to say, by let other side give POI and
answer it will optimize the rest time she have and if the answer is acceptable it will so
good. She construct an argument too that I think support the prime minister opinion,
but she didn’t rebuild and strengthen the LO argument much, more focuses on
refutating and make gov side argument weak.