2nd speaker:

I. Introduction

Good day fellow debaters and Mr. Chair

As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, it is my privilege to stand before you today to
represent our team's compelling case in this critical parliamentary debate. To extend our
proposition, my partner has explained

Human Rights and Dignity which revealed that the death penalty is a violation of this inherent
right and is a form of cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment.

He also explained how it affects the Socio-Economic Disparities where there is a

disproportionality and economically disadvantaged in the marginalized communities

And how giving death penalty as a choice for people sentenced to life imprisonment may affect
the Healing for their Victims’ families where death penalty does not necessarily provide the
closure they seek.

II. Counterarguments and Rebuttals

Before having a recap of our main points, I would like to further elaborate on the critical
issues arising from the previous speaker's arguments. As we delve deeper into the subject of the
death penalty, it becomes evident that seeking consent from prisoners is fraught with potential
issues that demand serious consideration

Firstly, we must address the question of fairness and justice in the implementation of the
death penalty. The administration of justice is not infallible, and there have been numerous
cases of wrongful convictions in the past. By asking for consent from prisoners, we risk creating
a false facade of fairness, which might only serve to legitimize an inherently flawed system.
Furthermore, prisoners may feel coerced or pressured to consent due to the immense
psychological strain they endure in death row environments. This raises concerns about whether
the consent obtained can be genuinely voluntary or if it is merely a desperate plea for an end to
the prolonged suffering they are subjected to.
 Secondly, the issue of illiteracy among prisoners with high crimes cannot be overlooked.
Illiterate prisoners may struggle to fully comprehend the consequences of their consent,
especially when faced with complex legal jargon. This raises questions about their ability to
provide informed consent knowingly. Without adequate comprehension, the validity of their
consent becomes questionable, and we must ensure that no individual is coerced into making
decisions they do not fully understand.

Lastly, and which leads to our next argument, we must recognize the potential for public
manipulation through the consent-seeking process. When the government introduces the notion
of consent, they may try to distract the public from the larger ethical and moral implications of the
death penalty. This tactic might lead the public to focus solely on the willingness of the prisoners
to accept their fate, instead of critically evaluating the justifiability and humanity of the death
penalty itself. Such manipulation could cloud the public's judgment and prevent them from
objectively assessing the inherent flaws in capital punishment.

III. Additional Arguments

Now, to further extend our arguments, another issue this house would like to address is why the
choice of death penalty should not be given towards these prisoners is because of the potential
for Coercion and Manipulation.

In terms of Emotional Appeals: The government might highlight cases of heinous crimes and
focus on the emotional impact on victims' families to sway public opinion in favor of the death
penalty. By emphasizing the suffering of victims, they might appeal to people's emotions, leading
them to overlook the need for a rational and objective examination of the effectiveness and
fairness of capital punishment.

It may also distract them from Systemic Issues: the art of Consent-seekingmay serve to
distract the public from larger systemic issues within the criminal justice system. Instead of
addressing issues of corruption, inadequate legal representation, or unfair sentencing practices,
the government might emphasize the choice of individual prisoners as a way to appear more
compassionate and just, despite the broader issues that persist.

Public Opinion Manipulation: The consent-seeking process could be used to manipulate

public opinion through media and propaganda. By presenting the death penalty as a choice
prisoners willingly make, the government might attempt to create an illusion of public support for
capital punishment, even if the majority of citizens are divided or uncertain on the matter.

They may also shift the Narrative itself: Focusing on prisoners' consent may shift the
narrative away from discussing alternatives to the death penalty, such as rehabilitation,
restorative justice, or improvements in prison conditions. This diversionary tactic may hinder
comprehensive discussions on more effective and humane ways to address crime and its root
causes.

Exacerbating Polarization: Consent-seeking on the death penalty may polarize public opinion
further. Some individuals might strongly support capital punishment, arguing that it respects the
prisoners' choices, while others may emphasize the inherent flaws and inhumanity of the death
penalty itself. This polarization could lead to a divisive public discourse, hindering constructive
dialogue and consensus-building.

B. Providing fresh evidence, statistics, or expert opinions to support these new points.

IV. Impact Analysis

The recognition of potential public manipulation through the consent-seeking process in the
Philippines is crucial. By highlighting specific examples of how this manipulation might occur, we
can raise awareness about the need for the public to remain vigilant and critically evaluate the
larger ethical and moral implications of the death penalty. It is essential to encourage objective
and informed discussions that transcend emotional appeals and focus on finding just, effective,
and humane approaches to the complex issue of criminal justice.

VII. Addressing Constituents' Concerns

A. Appealing to the needs and interests of the constituents the opposition represents.
B. Explaining how the opposition's position aligns better with the interests of the citizens.
C. Establishing a connection with the audience to gain support for the opposition's case.

V. Conclusion

To wrap up the opposition’s main argument, our advocacy is to promote human rights
and dignity, as well as to assess the socio economic disparities in death penalty and lastly, our
sympathy on the healing process of their victims’ families.