this tournament adapts the British parliamentary style the debate consists of

four teams of two speakers with two teams on either side of the keys each
speaker should deliver a five-minute speech and teams gain points
individually email on the same side the first and last minute of each speech is
protected from the point of information teams and sites are chosen by drawing
lots and our students will now randomly select a scroll that has their position
written on it first are the students from Korean bindles leadership academy
students Han hae Joo and Pat Sinha let's see what kind of scroll they select
they have chosen opening our division next our custom one and eg one
students from in one girl's high school there are school Reed's opening
Dominic's so they're going in direct opposition to the Korean Windhoek
Leadership Academy continuing on some one high school students pass to
one and show you your career in government and that of course means that
students Kim taejin and Egon hua shan tong Duchin foreign language high
school will be assuming the position [Applause] [Music] as irrational - sorry
emergency mission here by other plans there were now let's move on to our
three judges first of all we have Professor Joshua Park and also professor
Kaltura sucia and finally also Sandeep Jelani and last but not least we have
50 audience judges right here in the studio students from Council High School
hello and welcome audience judges they will share their support for the
speaker in the form of green lights if they agree with a speaker they will turn
their lights on and the number of green lights switched on will be reflected in
the final results so please make your decision carefully okay that's enough for
me let's check out the motion for today's debate the integration of digital
information the real world environment augmented reality from science fiction
high screen to practical reality a our games are changing the very nature of
gaming these days however augmented reality games mean augmented
security risks is it really safe to play these things in public places or should
they be banned this house would stand a play of augmented reality games in
public places so should we ban the play of AR games in public let's hear the
students first not the prime minister please step up to the podium you may
begin your speech at the sound of the beat I am the Prime Minister of this
debate on the motion this house would ban the play of augmented reality
games in public places before going on to my constructive speech I will be
defining the motion the government would like to define ban the play as
allowing the installation however forbidding the play we would like to define
public place as an open area in which there are many people we would also
like to define augmented reality as the technology that superimposes a
computer-generated image on a user's view of the real world I as the Prime
Minister will be going over how it is the government's role to protect citizens
from harms and dangers that could happen and our Deputy Prime will be
going over the social harms that could happen from the play of AR games in
public on August 25th 2016 a Japanese truck driver hit two pedestrians while
distracted on a stone playing Pokemon go a highly popular AR game one of
the pedestrians died the government supports the motion this house would
ban the play of augmented reality games in public places because a
fundamental role of the government is to protect its citizens from harms and
dangers that could happen Adam yes given that law everyone goes to that
problem can you say that this is an exclusive cause of augmented reality
games I will be talking about the dangers of augmented reality games in
augmented reality games however to summit to talk about it briefly augmented
games are more dangerous than mobile games which are already in use
because they are on the border of virtual on the part of the virtual world and
reality itself and I will go on with my speech I will explain the dangers of
playing AR games in public places from two aspects which is public places
and inner games themselves first of all public places are different from your
homes or your own backyard a a player is not familiar with the new
surroundings and therefore they do not know where the dent in the floor is
they do not know where the kerb is and therefore it can lead to many
dangerous accidents B there are many existing people and obstacles that the
player can bump into trip over or fall into C it is an open area and therefore
there is a possibility of the player straying off or wandering off into somewhere
they haven't ever been before no thank you second I would like to talk about
the dangers of AR games which are different from mobile games as I have
talked briefly about before it is more dangerous because mobile games only
take place in the virtual world however AR games take place on the border of
the virtual world and reality and therefore the lines are blurred the players
mind no thank you are absorbed into the virtual world while their body is still in
reality so it's basically like covering one's eyes and walking on the streets as
an example I gave many deaths are occurred when a driver is distracted by
playing an AR game and this can be looked upon with a parallel example of
drunk driving in both cases the AR game and alcohol creates illusions in the
human brains and therefore distracts the player from thinking rationally and
thinking clearly next yes why is that the unique characteristic of air games
while if you're too absorbed in just only like ordinary games you also look for a
bit it's like you know like you know crossover a bump that is on the street as I
said before it is on the border of the virtual world and the reality and therefore
the mind is still in the virtual world however the body needs to walk around
how do you ever play Pokemon go before you have to walk around in reality
however still focusing on the virtual world and the screen therefore it is
different from mobile games that you only have to concentrate on the mode on
the screen next I will talk about how the company does not take responsibly
responsibility for accidents that occur during the play of games and therefore it
is the government's role to protect US citizens me untick the company that
made Pokemon go has announced that they wouldn't take responsibility for
players therefore the government needs to take out especially AR games
because they are only starting to be used and played just like cell phones the
more cell phones are used the more texting and driving is causing deaths and
the more it is being regulated therefore we need to prevent any further harms
and dangers that could be caused by AR games to sum up I would like to
support the motion this house would ban the play of augmented reality games
in public places because it is the government's role to protect citizens from
harms and dangers and clearly AR games are a harm in danger thank you ok
you may take a say that was the Prime Minister arguing for the motion that
government should ban the play of AR games in public so how successful was
she in persuading our audience let's find out I'm seeing almost half of the
lights 28 also 50 so roughly a bit over half of our audience agree with the
Prime Minister can the Leader of Opposition beat this it's your time - seeker
the only one simple liner they came from the Opera the opposing team was
that it was dangerous and it was harmful and plus the government should ban
it so when I prove to in my speech for this simple logic cannot simply be a
justification for the government to step in and bound something first of all
ladies and gentlemen there are many products that are harmful classified as
harmful first of all I can you know directly cause harm on oneself like alcohol
for example but there's not a big justification for the government to step in and
ban alcohol right because the government basically says because it can
cause potential harm if you misuse it and actually overuse it you can actually
you know control yourself and actually make it a healthy habit of yours and
secondly whether it's harm it harms others right directly from the third party
and the bystander is like smoking for example however we're going to prove -
in my speech by augmented reality games are different from these smoking
carry cases just because of the fact that the users are not the direct cause of
these accidents just like smoking right by smoking itself it causes harm to the
bystanders whereas augmented games are based on the users right how do
like how these users use the game basically so now yes you gave us an
example of alcohol however alcohol is also drunk driving is also banned also
but it is are about that point there was a third third rebuttal to your site you
talked about driving right using your phone during driving it's banned in 36
states of the United States already so this is basically not relevant to this
debate you want to talk about driving then maybe we're going to have another
debate about driving but Baptizer if we're talking about walking like if we
believe that there's a crude difference while using your friend during driving so
let's move on to our arguments which also like softer about staircase so I'm
going to speak to you first of all about the justification why of mented reality
games well not enough the reasons are not enough to be banned and then
secondly we're going to move on to explain its benefits right the first of all
meant to be led games they talked about harms / potential so in order to make
you like provide you with a better logic we actually you know went to the
internet and searched the death tracks like we tracked down the death rates
right 14 deaths and 54 injuries right so we classified categorized is based on
three aspects first of all there were people who just died and coincidentally
they were playing that game while they died like for example people work for
shoot while playing the game not because of the game itself but they were just
sure walking the street and they were shot and I'm feeling it like people they're
also people who had heart attacks but basically it's self-evident but this is not
relevant because the cause of the accident itself is not based on the game
right and secondly have cell form where people prioritize to catch that
Pokemon sketch wait for example Pikachu over there or and so they did in
mind you know getting hurt during the action right touching that thing also if
you talk about like this self-harm governor restriction is not allowed the
government restriction is not to an extent banning right as I talked about
alcohol right we don't ban alcohol just because it's so powerful secondly
individuals have the right to weigh out and prioritize what they're going to do
right they're prioritize touching that Pikachu we say okay go on but don't do
that too far right we don't ban it and certainly this is the main cause right main
cause that we're talking about hitting pedestrians bumping into people and
being struck by vehicles basically madam Speaker these cases are different
right from like smoking for example because these kind of accidents or cost
not because of the Pokemon go itself not because of these games themselves
but rather these games are caused by the misuse and unwary behaviors of
the individuals from Salomon right the individual is basically bumped into
these people and seeing the aspect how only like you know twenty percent of
these people were bumping in we can conclude that the stick game does not
you know genetically make you bump into people right it's basically how
people misuse well this right so you guys talk to you why responsibility if the
responsibility basically is not on the you not on the users like no not on the
games when the responsibilities on the users why is this not enough for you to
go out go on government to intervene and ban it because first of all there's
such a low potential of these kind of things happening we actually see a lot of
more economic benefits that we would talk about our second argument rather