THR the narrative of YOLO

GOVERNMENT SIDE: (YOLO)

“You only live once” (YOLO) is a modern version of the Latin phrase Carpe diem,
meaning “Seize the day.” Since you only live once, you need to live life to the fullest, even when
that means embracing adverse behavioral choices that carry an inherent risk. The narrative of
YOLO or mostly known as "You only live once" is not new to our generation, it has been used a
lot in the past to justify terrible decisions and often used as a way to entice others to join you in
making such decisions. In this case, the “YOLO” mentality has swept young adult generations. In
some instances, the idea of “YOLO” pushing people to take risks is positive, this narrative
influences people to focus only on the present and to not think of the possible consequences of
their action later on.

Thus, Here are the following arguments that this house wants to propose and why it
regrets the narrative of YOLO:

 It has been used as an excuse for unjustifiable decisions or actions,

Since Drake's song "The Motto" became popular, it's been used as an excuse for bad
behavior. This repulsive song encourages people to waste their lives on illicit behavior. Although
the remark has been around longer than Drake's song, it has acquired a negative connotation
due to its misuse. People who believe in the narrative of "Yolo" often shows that in your
decisions, you give much more importance to the present situation rather than the future.

 It contributes a negative impact on one's perspective in life.

This narrative shows that YOLO encourages people to see life only in one perspective
and that is to only live your life to the fullest without considering its possible consequences. This
will also cause possible risk that people won't accomplish anything in the long term because
they're constantly thinking about optimizing the present and don't have time or energy left for
important distant goals.

 Life needs to be paced out.

While in some ways "YOLO" is great theoretical advice about living life to the fullest, and
not waiting to do things later, it's kind of impractical. I believe life should be paced out, not
rushed through. The negative impact of this narrative is that, it poisons our mind to the fact that
we are being deteriorated away from reality. Life is not a bed of roses neither it is full of thorns.
Life is full of struggle but there is a lot of problems and challenges faced by the people in daily
life. Prosperity in every field of life never comes to you on its own. You have to struggle hard to
get to it. Thus, reality comes with consequences, in this case this is being forgotten due to this
narrative. YOLO also implies that we're always getting ready to live but the question is, are we
actually living? Old school as the idea might be, there is a reason why life comes in stages.
  It promotes a lie about life.
YOLO creates this fantasy world, where life is like a ferris-wheel stuck at the top
screaming your lungs out of excitement. Life indeed needs to be experienced but still it comes
with consequences. One of the examples of how YOLO promotes lie about life, is one of the
major problems that our society is facing today which is the increasing surge of teenagers being
pregnant at a young age. Nowadays, young individuals take risks at enjoying life and at some
cases they tend to forget the consequences of it. Life needs to be enjoyed but due to the fact
that their minds are being poisoned by the narrative that we only have one life to live they now
forget the repercussions of their actions and have crossed the borders of their limitations.

You only live once is a huge lie. We live multiple lives every day , but we only die once. So be
mindful of your actions. To conclude, these arguments demonstrate the negative effects of the
narrative of "YOLO," or "you only live once." So once again, this house regrets the narrative of
YOLO, I rest my case.

OPPOSITION SIDE: (YOLO)

Good morning ladies and gentleman, this is the deputy leader of opposition of the
house opposing the arguments of the Deputy Prime Minister. Here are one of the arguments that
I've highlighted and would want to oppose based on the presented arguments by the Deputy
Prime Minister. You stated that YOLO pictures fear than courage and I strongly disagree with
that, if we will further analyze, YOLO allows us to be courageous and face our own fears as it
empower us to feel motivated to go out of comfort zones and to further improve ourselves based
on the experiences that we acquire. Isn't the definition of courage is "the ability to do something
that frightens one."? If that is not courage, what may it be?

Now, As the deputy leader of the opposition, I will further elaborate the benefits and
positive effects of YOLO that was stated by the Leader of Opposition.

You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough. – Mae West

The slogan "YOLO" has been so overused that it's now used to promote almost any
product. But we only have one life on this planet. Nobody likes to look back on their lives with
regrets, "if onlys," and "what ifs." Living is, after all, an art form. You can't enjoy the taste of life
if you don't know how to live. You have to understand that our lives are quite fascinating.
Therefore, we must let those colors to shine in all of their glory. It will not only make you
appreciate your life, but it will also make you fall in love with it. As a result, live your life as if you
have no regrets. Make an effort to savor every moment of your life. We all know that we only
get one shot at living our lives.

 We are created for a purpose:

Each of us possesses unique skills, talents, and abilities that distinguish us from the rest
of the world. We have the opportunity to harness true power that no amount of money can
 purchase when we uncover these attributes within ourselves. Our abilities have the potential to
brighten someone's day or transform their perspective on the world.
Ever since, people have been living inside a cage and afraid to explore the word due to
the fear of taking risks. The narrative of YOLO allow us to have small and big changes in our life
as it helps us to go out of our comfort zone and explore things that we normally don't
experience but still instilling to oneself about our limitations.

 Find Fulfillment:
Whoever thought fulfillment is overrated hasn't yet discovered it. How many of us go
through the motions year after year, living paycheck to paycheck, just trying to pay our expenses
and make ends meet? Where is your enthusiasm, excitement, or love for what you do? How has
it aided in bringing about change or having a positive impact on people's lives? Everything else
will fall into place if you live passionately every day.

 There’s no time like the present.

YOLO allows people to take risks, as life is full of challenges, going out of your comfort
zone is one of the great ways to fully discover your potential. YOLO pushes us to continue
forward and provide chances for our improvement as a person. It gives us the confidence to
open the door of opportunities once it come knocking to our door.

A lot of people would say that YOLO only connotes negative impact on one's life, but
this narrative clearly depends on how people perceive and apply it to their lives.

 It allows us to value the essence of life.

On other people's viewpoint the narrative of YOLO only radiates negative consequences
as it results to risky behavior and decisions. But this statement is clearly absurd. A lot of people
views YOLO as a lack of importance to one's life, well in fact and realistically speaking specially in
this time of crisis, YOLO allows us to value the essence of life. Death is inevitable, we won't know
whether one of our families will still be here on the next day, week or month. As what Buddha
one of the philosophers use to say, " “Do not dwell in the past; do not dream of the future;
concentrate the mind on the present moment.” This clearly shows how we should live our life
like it's the only one as we don't have a clue if the next day we still have a chance to live.
Nobody knows when their last day on Earth will be, not even their loved ones, thus enjoying life
to the fullest is the best way to live. Rather than being dissatisfied with the past because it is a
waste of time, look forward to the future with hope and excitement. The world is fluid and
dynamic, always evolving and changing, and it is critical to accept it. Someone with five years of
experience may add a new spin and uniqueness to a certain assignment with plenty of
imagination, research, and adaptability than someone with decades of experience. Everything
rests on you: your strengths, your willingness to work hard on your deficiencies, and your
openness to constructive criticism and change. So once again, we strongly disagree with the
given motion, I rest my case.
THIS HOUSE REGRETS “LET’S NORMALIZED LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP” CULTURE

GOVERNMENT SIDE:

Do you think live-in relationships is an absolute walk in the park? Think you've seen couples on-
screen make it look lovely and utterly romantic. While it may seem easy and smooth, a live-in
relationship comes with its own set of disadvantages. "Arrangements wherein two people decide to
live together on a long-term or permanent basis in an emotionally or sexually intimate relationship" is
the basic definition of live in relationship. The phrase is most commonly used to describe non-married
couples. The legal definition of a live-in relationship is "an arrangement of living in which an unmarried
couple lives together to conduct a long-term relationship in the same way that they would in
marriage." The word "live in relationship" can refer to any number of people who live together. In a
broad meaning, "cohabit" means "to coexist."
Thus, this house regrets the "Let's normalize live-in relationship culture" and to further elaborate here
are the arguments that we would like to propose:

 Effect on children
The children who are born in a live-in relationship are considerably affected by it. First of
all, they may develop a lack of respect for rules and norms. And they also harbour an edge of
mistrust in their hearts, especially if their parents separate. Secondly, after separation the father
of the child holds no explicit legal ground to claim any custodial rights. It mostly depends upon
the mother of the child to decide on the father’s claims. Lastly, a child born out of a live-in
relationship has no right to claim his or her father’s inheritance. Since their parent’s relationship
is void of all legal bindings, it also means that they have no legal grounds to claim inheritance.

 EITHER PARTY CAN END A LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OTHER
A live-in relationship is a contract between two people to live together that is renewed every
day and can be ended by either party without the approval of the other. As a result, persons
who choose to live together cannot accuse each other of infidelity or immorality. As a result, we
might conclude that it is nothing more than personal pleasure.

 Criticism and societal pressure

Couples who live together become a source of jokes. They are chastised for their
housing choices. Since the conception of this notion a few years ago, society and the old have
been unable to embrace it, and have attempted to split the couples on numerous grounds such
as caste, religion, class, and so on. Couples tend to break up because of these rigid cultural
expectations, as well as the persistent judgmental viewpoints. Also, because they are afraid of
rejection, many couples in live-in relationships choose to label themselves married. This is
mostly responsible for relationship issues.

 Living together before marriage comes with disadvantages

 The disadvantage of living together before marriage is that some couples are less likely
to commit to each other or be satisfied with their arrangement. Individuals who choose to
cohabitate may have different expectations about the relocation than their partners. If one
partner has more unconventional notions about marriage and becomes complacent in this
arrangement, and the other partner expects marriage to follow this step, it can cause problems.

To conclude, these arguments demonstrate the negative effects of normalizing live-in

relationships. As a result, we strongly agree to the given motion. I rest my case.

OPPOSITION SIDE:

Live in relationships means where two people live together in a relationship similar to
marriage for the primary reason of checking their compatibility before tying the nuptial knot
with each other. Generally couples live together for various reasons like sharing the finances,
house and responsibilities. However our urban society has lost the faith in the institution of
marriage because of so many separation cases so for them it is a way to make sure that the
choice they are making is actually good for them. Modern day couples think that live in
relationships is the final resort to ensure the success of their married life.

Thus, to elaborate it further, here are the given arguments that we want to propose:

 THE RIGHT OF A COUPLE IN A LIVE IN RELATIONSHIP IN THE PHILIPPINES TO EACH OTHER'S

PROPERTY IS GOVERNED BY THE CO-OWNERSHIP RULE.
Article 147, of the Family Code, Philippines provides that when a man and a woman who
are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife
without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be
owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work
or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership .

 Equality and mutual understanding

People in live-in relationships take a pragmatic attitude and believe that they are both
equally accountable for the relationship's success. Also, because the door out of the relationship
is always open, neither person is financially, emotionally, or legally reliant on the other. As a
result, both partners make an extra effort to demonstrate their dedication and loyalty in the
relationship to make it more secure.

 Test for compatibility

 People who live together have a lot of time to get to know each other's personalities
and temperaments. This makes it easier for them to decide whether or not to marry their live-in
spouse. People are given the opportunity to assess their emotional and physical compatibility.
Relationship specialists even advocate getting into a live-in relationship in order to make an
informed judgment because it is almost impossible for your spouse to be false all of the time if
you live together. As a result, it is not a terrible idea to put a relationship to the test. It's also
crucial because the number of cases of separation and divorce is increasing every day.

 Test the strength of your relationship

The final test in cohabiting is to see if you're actually going to work out. Being in love
with someone is not the same as living with them. It's a totally different ballgame when you
have to live with them and observe their behaviors, such as whether they are messy in the
house and whether or not they will perform their responsibilities. It's just adjusting to the fact
that you have a partner.
 Better Bond
People can only fully bond when they are completely honest with each other. And when
you're in a live-in relationship, you naturally begin to feel at ease around one another. You begin
to disclose your darkest concerns and secrets with one another, which is a strong indicator of
mutual trust.

 Lastly,
Many couples believe that they should live together before committing to a long-term
relationship. Because, in most circumstances, if any concerns occur that cannot be resolved, the
partnership can be ended without resorting to legal action. Another advantage of live-in
relationships is that, because they are now outside the scope of societal structure, they are
immune to the negative effects of society. This indicates that live-in partnerships do not have to
abide by the rules of society. In a live-in relationship, the burdens of social contacts are
lessened, and it really helps a partnership grow stronger.

To conclude, these arguments demonstrate the positive effects of normalizing live-in

relationships. Therefore, we should strongly disagree with the given motion. I rest my case.

THBT government should prioritize health over education

GOVERNMENT SIDE:

“Things that happen in the home can definitely affect a child being able to even
concentrate in the classroom. … If you're hungry, you can't learn with your belly
growling. … If you’re worried about your mom being safe while you're at school, you're
 not going to be able to pay attention.” —Chimere The relationship between education
and health is never a simple one. Poor health not only results from lower educational
attainment, it can also cause educational setbacks and interfere with schooling.

To further elaborate the given statement, here are the arguments that we would
like to propose:

 Health is a key part of economic-growth:

The COVID-19 epidemic has served as an unwelcome reminder of how important
health is to individuals, society, and the global economy. Over the last century,
improved health has supported global growth by expanding the labor force and raising
productivity. Indeed, economists estimate that improved health contributed nearly a
third of the overall GDP-per-capita rise in industrialized economies during the last
century. What exactly is the link between better health and economic growth? To begin
with, fewer people are likely to die early, resulting in an increase in the working-age
population. When people are healthy, they miss fewer days due to illness, and workers
are less preoccupied with their own or their loved ones' illnesses. In addition, fewer
workers are retiring early due to health issues.

 Invest in health to build greater resilience

We can enhance the health of the world's population by using what we know
today, which would not only create resilience against future pandemics but also
drastically improve the quality of life for millions of people who suffer from chronic
illnesses on a daily basis.

 Promote social and economic equity by improving health

Researchers discovered a ten-year disparity in life expectancy between the most
and least disadvantaged groups in the United States even before the COVID-19
pandemic.5 Disparities of this magnitude can be found in most countries and societies
around the world. People who are poorer have poorer health, which might limit their
economic potential and potentially create a vicious cycle. Emerging evidence suggests
that poor childhood health leads to a lower socioeconomic status in adulthood,
increasing exposure to health risks (such as poor nutrition, unsafe housing, and unsafe
neighborhoods) and barriers to accessing health services, which then affect future
generations of children.

If an awareness of the underlying health disparities among the population

informs and molds health-improvement strategies, they will have a stronger impact. By
 recognizing and addressing the additional health barriers that exist in diverse areas,
interventions could be tailored to meet the needs of disadvantaged groups. In many
circumstances, multisectoral interventions would be required, incorporating not only
healthcare but also housing, education, social services, and jobs. Addressing the
underlying social causes that contribute to ill health could help to reduce health
disparities.

 Health plays an important role in achieving our dreams

They say education is the most important aspect of life and one of the key
elements to succeed. But the question is, how will you succeed if your life is already at
risk? For example, children with chronic illnesses may experience recurrent absences
and difficulty concentrating in class, which directly affect their academic performance.
Both education and health are essential for living a meaningful life. However, if
someone needs to choose between them, he/she should prioritize health. Without
being mentally and physically healthy, someone will not be able to get proper education
or use the education purposefully. Although education gives people development
opportunities, it is not required for survival. Healthy people can survive no matter if they
are personally developed or not. an unhealthy person cannot be educated. It is
important to be healthy because, if people lose the education they can gain it again but,
they cannot regain their health.

The other reason is because, in light of our current circumstances, and as I

previously indicated, our health plays a critical role in our lives due to the threat posed
by the COVID-19 pandemic. What I'm trying to get across is that our usual lives have
changed, and we now need to be more cautious and put in more work to preserve our
health, ourselves, and our country. That is why it is more important than ever for our
government to prioritize health, since if we do nothing, the risk will spread throughout
the country.

To conclude, these arguments demonstrate the significance of health especially

in light of the current scenario. That’s why we strongly believed that in order for
country's economic to prosper. The Government should prioritized health over
education. I rest my case.

OPPOSITION SIDE:

Education, in general, is a means of formally or informally supporting learning.

Education is significant because it equips people with knowledge. It changes people's
 perspectives on life. It aids them in making the best decisions possible. It leads to the
development of a well-developed health-care system. It leads to more doctors and
nurses in countries, as well as an improvement in the economy, because well-educated
workers produce more and earn more than those who are less educated. However,
health and the economy are critical. They all contribute to the development of a large
and powerful country, but education is the most vital. Nowadays, everything is
dependent on knowledge. How can a society establish a future and create successful
employers without education?

Education is more important than health care. It is a guide to improvement of

physical and mental health because education is the basis of healthcare. If there is no
education, there will not be any abilities of reading and writing . Without literacy,
people are going to lose the knowledge about healthcare. The unawareness will make
an unhealthy society. To further elaborate this statements, here are the following
arguments that we would like to propose:

 Allows the members of the community to be educated and aware:

Health education, as previously said, encourages a healthy lifestyle and raises

awareness of the importance of health. This can be accomplished by professionals
participating in the education of individuals on how to live a healthier life.

Health education isn't limited to the classroom. Many organizations provide free
lectures in rural areas in order to reach out to communities and provide them with
health information. Furthermore, there are professionals, particularly educators, who
take the time to research the community's health needs in order to provide appropriate
assistance.

 EDUCATION INCREASES EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES

It's difficult to find job, especially in these tough economic times. You may have
to compete with hundreds of other candidates for a vacant position. Furthermore, the
lower one's degree of education, the more people apply for the same low-paying entry-
level job. You will have a better chance of obtaining a meaningful employment if you
have the relevant skills and educational background. Do you want to figure out how to
stand out among a sea of candidates? Learn as much as you can, educate yourself,
graduate, and get as many certificates, skills, information, and experience as possible.
 ONE IS EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT AFFECTS YOUR FUTURE SPECIFICALLY IN FINDING JOBS

Education is generally good insurance against unemployment, even in difficult

economic times. The median wages for college graduates in 2012 was one-and-a-half
times higher than that of high school graduates and more than double that of workers
who lacked a high school diploma. People with lower incomes often live in
neighborhoods or communities that present numerous challenges that affect their
health, including less access to supermarkets and healthy food choices, less access to
green space or other recreational areas, higher crime rates, lower quality schools, fewer
jobs and increased levels of pollution. The bottom line is that strengthening schools
would likely make our nation healthier and reduce health care spending in the long run.

Education is both a development catalyst and a health intervention in and of

itself. Education provides the skills, beliefs, and attitudes that enable citizens to live
healthy. Education is generally good insurance against unemployment, even in difficult
economic times. Before I close my statement, I would like to leave an analogy or situation
where, what's more should we focus on to? Health over education? or Education over health?
Now to leave the question, what can you say about people who have an addiction to certain
substance such as cocaine and other source of illegal drugs. Do you think that health is the
reason why he become addicted to a certain substance in the case? Or the lack of education and
awareness of the concerning effects of drug intake, is the reason why he is addicted in the first
place?

And with that, once again this is your (position) speaking, I rest my case.