Team Ruby

23 JUNE 2020
1) THW ban private cars in big cities

FIRST SPEAKER
WHO estimated 2018 between 2030 & 2050 climate change causes 250,000 deaths per
year, due to lack of sufficient food and water and erosion of coastal regions. A 2015 UC
Berkeley study found unchecked climate change, global economic growth and shrinkage of
the global economy.

We agree with the team 's proposition on this - there is an environmental crisis. The world is
towards its end, but banning cars is not the solution. We believe that it is impossible,
impractical and unrealistic.

Private cars: cars owned by individuals and private companies.

Big cities: cities larger in terms of size, population and development.

What do you need to prove:

a. Their model is impossible to implement
b. Even if it was possible, it would have harmful effects
c. Provide a counter-model that is potentially better off creating a safer and better world.

Negation

Proposition Policy
● They are only preventing it once a week. They also say people who want to own cars
should go outside the city.
○ Women safety in public transport
● Realisticity and possibility of implementation
○ The government is not incentivised because they have high tax revenues that
they receive from automobile industries.
■ A new study conducted by the Center for Automotive Research (CAR)
has discovered that a massive 13 percent of all state tax revenue
comes from the automotive sector.
■ In total, the auto industry contributed some $91.5 billion to state
government tax revenues and more than $43 billion to the federal
government tax revenues USA.

○ The industries benefit from the larger cities than the smaller cities because
there is a greater demand for automobiles in larger cities than smaller cities
and these industries find their market right here also because more people
can afford it. Therefore, withdrawing from these huge markets can be
detrimental for these industries. Therefore they are not incentivised to follow
this policy.
 ○ The people have no incentive either because they enjoy using private
transport. It's more convenient for people so they will not want to lose the
independence, the freedom, security,

● Without cars, there would be many things that would not happen. First, most of the
business locations(restaurants, shopping malls,. Etc) and tourist landmarks won't
thrive as we will have to walk for a longer duration of time. They will be de-
incentivised to go to such places and even if they do,it will be less often to reduce the
inconvenience. The inconvenience is the cost that prevents them from enjoying the
benefits that were earlier much available to them.

● Even if their policy works,

○ they will not reach their goal of attaining a world where pollution is gone and
global warming is completely eradicated. It is impossible to attain such a
massive goal by just putting down one factor that contributes to global
warming
○ Their plan will also backfire because more and more people will get involved
in the . I will elaborate more on this later on

Signposting
1. Right to choice, Rebutting policy, Counter model
2. Comparative study, Criminal rates increase, Impact of the
3. Summing up case and rebutting

Argument
● Right to choice
Everyone must have the right to choose whether they want to use private or public
transportation. This model presented by proposition will go against the fundamental right to
choose. This is not just because this loss of an inherent right but also because this has an
effect on the people. My second speaker will be speaking more about the effects of the loss
of this right.

Counter Model
Our model is not going to avoid climate change, we won’t have a large impact either, but we
aim at preventing that one problem that could be contributing to global warming.

There will be a tax on those who use cars. We will not illegalize the use of private cars. This
is a huge lesson that we learn from banning plastic bags and carbon emissions.
● Washington, DC's government estimates that its 5-cent plastic bag tax has led to a
60 percent reduction in the number of these bags being used.
● The model indicates that such a carbon tax would, by 2026, result in U.S. CO2
emissions falling 31-32%

Therefore, taxing the people for private cars will result in a reduction of the number of cars.
This will not hamper their right to choice either. This is the difference between our and their
model. The goal of our model and theirs is just the same, but we are achieving it by not
hampering their right to choice and it will be possible to implement as well. And the
government will receive funds from this tax as well.
The government will use these funds to do either or all of the following:
● Subsidise the industries which will have fewer customers due to de-incentivisation of
the people to opt for private cars so that the automobile industry does not die out or
face too many losses.
● Improve the public transport which will be overcrowded and overused. This will help
to develop it for further use and to make it convenient for those who are handicapped
or disable to access and use transportation.

Here there is no loss to the industries as they are subsidised, government will not suffer any
losses and finally, the people themselves, who are the ones who can bring about the change
on a large scale, will be able to slowly turn to public transport and stop using their own cars
which not only is beneficial to the environment but also unlike proposition, our public
transport will be strong enough to accommodate and manage the load of people and the
crowds.

We are able to satisfy everyone, and implement the policy smoothly unlike proposition, and
plus we are achieving the very same goal that they do - save the environment.

SUMMARISATION: Right to choice, How their policy does not work, Our policy, We created
the world where all stakeholders are

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
What did the proposition tell you?
● Saving the world and preventing climate change
● Safety of women due to usage of public transport
● Lesser cars on the road because of lower car usage
● Roads can be dismantled and hospitals, schools can be built in these areas.
● Healthier option as people will opt to walk or cycle to work.
Assuming that any of these benefits are possible or true
All these benefits are there on our side but we are able to implement because it is realistic
and implementable.
● MODEL: They have not even told us in which cases they will prohibit the use of
private cars in their model. Even if we ignore that, it is impossible to mitigate climate
change if the usage of cars is only reduced by one time per week which is a very
minute contribution to reduce pollution caused by automobiles.
1. Which policy is realistic and possible to implement?
Which policy satisfies all the stakeholders involved?
○ Government - losses
○ Industry - losses and subsidy
○ People - incentivised or not. They will have a more convenient mode of
transportation in our world. Right to choose. They were willing to trade it
off with saving the environment. We are able to save the environment and at
the same time Lockdown helps the country so people have to follow it. But
again this applies to those people who value their health more than their right
to choose. There are people who are hosting parties and gatherings under all
the surveillance. Same way, on our side, people who will consider their
 money being constantly lost from their savings over their convenience is
exactly how we intend to use our policy.
2. Which policy has the better impact if implemented?
○ Criminal society and ‘’black market’’
○ Slowly incentivising the people to use public transport with a tax on
private cars so that usage of private transport becomes less prevalent.
3. Which policy contributes to combating climate change?
○ The fact that ours is implementable and theirs is not possible is already why
we have won this debate. Overuse of automobiles as more and more
people are lured to the forbidden fruit. Second speaker has already
elaborated that once the use of drugs and alcohol had become criminalised
and illegalised, it became more and more used. Same concept applies here.
Once usage of cars becomes criminal acts, this leads to the rise of a whole
new field of criminal acts.

In terms of driving less

Follow these tips to reduce the time you spend driving:
● Walk or bike when you can.
● Take public transit when possible.
● Carpool with friends instead of driving alone
● Use ride-sharing services whenever possible.

In terms of driving wisely:

1. Drive efficiently – go easy on the gas pedal and brakes.
2. Maintain your car – get regular tune-ups, follow the manufacturer’s maintenance
schedule, and use the recommended motor oil.

In terms of fuel efficiency

● Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles; and
● Cleaner burning gasoline vehicles.

Evidence: The private cars cause many disadvantage such as traffic congestion, pollution,
and global warming

Asin - Second speech:

Intro: Ladies and Gentlemen, the real reality of their case is not what they say is going to
happen. I as the second speaker will talk about the reality of banning private cars and in the
process will rebut their case. But i will confirm one matter before i move on.

Arguments:
Impacts on the lives of the people using private cars
● People who work are forced to use public transport because they don't have their
own transport. This makes it harder for them to travel and get to the required place
and it is much time consuming. Long-waiting hours, walking time etc, makes them
 late for work. This could in turn affect the number of working hours and result in the
collective reduction of the economy as more people take time for their transport to
arrive.

● Public transport will increase and will have to be made to run full time. People who
work late or go for movies late at night have to be able to return to their homes after
fulfilling their duties. So they have to run public transport full time. We cannot see this
as an option as just like prop we are agreeing to reduce the pollution, when this is
just increasing it.Team prop talked bout sexual assault. They are in more danger of
being assaulted when they travel alone at night.

● Unemployment to drivers. By banning cars, we are increasing the unemployment rate

as these people who once had a job dont have it anymore. Let’s look at some of the
big cities .London is one of Uber's top five markets globally and it has about 45,000
drivers in the city. New York City has about 200,000 for-hire drivers licensed by the
Taxi and Limousine service. There are approx. 66,000 taxis going in and around
Beijing. If private cars were banned, all these drivers would lose their jobs and thus
increase the unemployment rate of the city.

CRIMINALISATION
● Drugs and alcohol upon being illegalized and declaring its use as a criminal act, only
increased the number of people using it. This same principle works here. Banning
private cars will create a new ‘’black market’’ which will act as the umbrella for the
criminals who will use private cars underground.

The problem and its solution:

Here we see by banning cars, it affects the people’s lives in many ways as explained in the
first two speeches through several ways. When these problems are being aided by solutions
like for example, using public transport, we see that it affects the environment. But when we
solve the problem of the environment, it affects the lives of the people. This is the problem.
So we see that banning cars is definitely not the solution. So what solution can we give??
WE can simply limit the way we use our car and how much we use it, without hurting the
environment or the life of the people using it.
● Walk or bike when you can.
● Take public transit when possible.
● Carpool with friends instead of driving alone
● Use ride-sharing services whenever possible
● Drive efficiently – go easy on the gas pedal and brakes.
● Maintain your car – get regular tune-ups, follow the manufacturer’s maintenance
schedule, and use the recommended motor oil.
● Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles; and
● Cleaner burning gasoline vehicles.

Comparative:

1. Their motion is really unrealistic and is not possible. On the other hand, we are
providing you with a solution which is realistic and possible. We have already
 provided you with the evidence that shows that taxing has significantly helped.

2. One of the reasons banning cars is not a solution is the fact that the government
yields a LOT of revenue from the automobile industry, as our first speaker has
already given you the proof. Government doesn't suffer any losses

3. Their model creates hindrance in the lives of the citizens. Many people use private
cars everyday to go to work. By banning, you are forcing them to use public
transport. You are creating a hindrance in the lives of your citizens.While we are
giving them the option to switch to public transport. We are providing a much easier
and more comfortable solution for all.

4. It increases the time used for traveling. By banning the cars, you are making many
people use public transport, which causes them to spend more time on travelling
than more productive work. In our model, we are providing them with a choice, if they
are capable of managing, they can shift to public transport.
5. Industries are incentivised in our policy. They will suffer losses on their side

Aryan:
Intro: Today we hear a case from the Proposition that is impractical and unrealistic. We need
to reduce global warming but not by banning people’s sole mode of transportation which
they use to commute everyday but by improving the conditions of public transportation. Then
Rebuttal.

POI- Does the speaker realise that by banning this private transport across big cities you will
cause mass unemployment within taxi drivers?

While taxis are a form of transport available to the public, they aren't Public
Transportation (capitalization intended.) Public Transportation is generally considered to
be systems operated (or heavily regulated) by the government that: Operates on a schedule.

POI Does the speaker realize that banning cars does not really bring a change to the air
pollution, but only creates unemployment and slows down the economy.

India example is irrelevant as it is a country and not a city

24 JUNE 2020
2) THW prohibit Presidents/Heads of States from having personal social media
accounts.
Proposition Opposition

Why is the debate Many world leaders are using social World leaders need to reach out to their
media irresponsibly - exhibiting offensive people - deliver necessary information and
and racial behaviour that not only go develop close relationships with the people
 against the moral code, but also against
the fundamental rules of social media.
they serve. Today there are few
alternatives as far-reaching and effective,
with very wide and young audiences, as
Twitter. Twitter is another tool that enables
them to communicate with other diplomats
and journalists.

Definitions/ A. Prohibit: formally forbid something completely by law, rule, or other authority.

Clarifications
B. President/Heads of State: the chief public representative of a country who is
the head of government and need not be democratically elected.

C. Social media accounts: an arrangement by which a user is given personalized

access to social media typically by entering a username and password.

Model (Proposition) A. Prohibition of the use of personal social media accounts applies for those
leaders whose tweets have been labelled as -
‘’Misleading information — statements or assertions that have been confirmed to be
false or misleading by subject-matter experts, such as public health authorities.’’
B. The prohibition will also depend on the gravity of the offense or the
magnitude of negative impact they cause.
C. They will not be allowed to use their account to communicate nor respond to
other users.
D. This decision that considers these factors will be taken by the respective
social-media companies to maintain order.

What do you need to World leaders who spread misinformation
prove and cause enragement among the people
must not continue their social media
accounts (like Donald Trump misusing
social media platform Twitter).
A. World leaders have the same right
as any citizen to express their
opinions and exercise their freedom
of speech through any media.
B. There is no better method to reach
the people in today’s world - far-
reaching and effective, with very
wide and young audiences, as
Twitter.

What is the A. Right to information A. Freedoms and liberties of

Value/moral/message B. Fostering harmony among all expression
international communities
including minorities.

Arguments ‘’You may not threaten violence against
an individual or a group of people’’ -
Twitter rules against threats.
A. Right to information
It is the obligation of social media to
ensure true information reaches the
A. Freedom of Speech and
Expression
The guaranteed freedom of speech and
expression applies to leaders and citizens
alike.
Their choice to express themselves via any
people. Therefore the social media has
the burden to implement the motion.
B. Impact of Misinformation
● Loss of lives
Evidence A: In 1993, Trump promoted
the claim regarding the way AIDS could
be spread and that AIDS patients
intentionally spread the virus.
Evidence B: As the swine flu pandemic
began in 2009, he warned Americans
against taking flu vaccines.
medium should not be hindered.
B. Effect - Interaction between
leaders and people
Former Israeli ambassador to the United
States, Michael Oren: "Today there are few
alternatives as far-reaching and effective,
with very wide audiences and young
audiences, as Twitter. Twitter is another
tool that enables me to communicate with
other diplomats and journalists, while also
allowing me to add a personal touch.

Evidence C: When the Ebola virus Twitter is used by politicians including

outbreak devastated West Africa in 2014,
he disputed guidance by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention on how it
spreads.
Evidence D: When Trump promoted the
use of hydroxychloroquine.
All of which were falsified by renowned
experts after the spread of
misinformation.
C. Misuse of Power
World leaders have a great number of
audiences and popularity which they may
misuse to spread misinformation and
threaten communities or individuals:
former US president Barack Obama,
cabinet members in Chile, and politicians in
Germany, Japan and India.
Finding solutions to problems through a
public forum discussion
These politicians use the platform to
communicate with their constituents. Users
may send questions and the
congresspeople can directly respond. Blog
posts and news articles may be directly
linked and shared to all of their followers
and anyone else who comes across their
profile. They may also self-promote.

Trump, who routinely uses its platform to

bully all manner of targets — from rival
politicians to hated journalists,
disobedient business leaders and even
actors who displease him — as well as to
dispense direct and sometimes violent
threats.

On the state level in the United States,

politicians tend to use Twitter primarily for
constituent and policy-related issues. The
second most popular category of tweets
is personal musings.
Evidence A: Trump has also used
Twitter’s global platform as a foreign
 policy weapon, firing military threats at
the likes of North Korea and Iran in tweet
form.

Back in 2018, for example, he teased

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un with
button-pushing nuclear destruction

Evidence B: Trump had tweeted in

reference to violent George Floyd
demonstrations before threatening to
send in the “Military.”
This Tweet ‘’violates the policies
regarding the glorification of violence
based on the historical context of the last
line, its connection to violence, and the
risk it could inspire similar actions today.”

Evidence C: ‘’When the looting starts,

the shooting starts. Thank you!” Trump
added — making a bald threat to use
military force against civilians.

Evidence D: The Australian Labor Party's

politicians have used Twitter to attack
their opposition.

Clashes A. Right to information VS Freedom of speech and expression

B. Impact of Misinformation VS Minority cases of Misinformation
C. Ruling against Abusive and offensive behaviour VS Why Heads of States
not celebrities and other popular public figures?

FIRST SPEAKER

Definition Clarifications 30s

● Prohibit: formally forbid something completely by law, rule, or other authority.
Now what kind of other public platform are they going to take over - they have not
mentioned. This is very unclear and therefore we would consider this public platform as
social media.

● President/Heads of State: the chief public representative of a country who is the

head of government and are democratically elected.

● Personal social media accounts: an arrangement by which a user is given

personalized access to all social media typically by entering a username and
password.
We all want a world where freedom of speech and communication is upheld. While
team proposition proposes a confined world where there is no communication
between the heads and the people. If the jury believes in a world where there is space
for change, reform and long term benefits, then they side with team opposition.

Problem: Presidents and heads of states are misusing social media accounts to exhibit
racial and offensive behaviour on digital platforms with vast audiences.

Signposting: 30s
1. Attacking their model, why social media is the best way for presidents and
heads of states to reach the people and why is it important that they have
personal social media accounts.
2. Good impacts of having personal social media accounts on the society and a
comparative study
3. Rebutting and summing up case

AZHAR, PLEASE TELL THAT THE PRESIDENTS AND HEADS ARE NOT THE ONLY
ONE WHO POST RASICTS COMMENTS

TELL THAT ONLY BY HAVING THIS SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS, WE WILL KNOW
THAT THE HEADS HAVE SUCH A BAD THINKING
ONLY IF THEY POST THESE STUFFS, WE WILL KNOW THAT THEY ARE BAD AND
THEY WILL NOT ELECT THEM AGAIN

FIRST SHE DISCREDITED THE HEADS, THEN SHE IS SUPPORTING THEM???

Rebuttal 2 min (1:00)

● Misinformation and racist comments: Social media has regulations to keep
control. For example, in Twitter
○ Misleading information — statements or assertions that have been
confirmed to be false or misleading by subject-matter experts, such as public
health authorities.’ There will be labels on these tweets
○ There are a number of other labels in Twitter depending on the gravity of the
offense or the magnitude of negative impact they cause.
○ This decision that considers these factors will be taken by the respective
social-media companies to maintain order.
● Wars and sparking nuclear wars. Now this is a fault of the government. We are
seeing that this can be combated because I will be speaking about how wrong
governments are changed and reformed.
● If they say there is loss of lives due to misinformation, this is a short term loss.I
will be speaking about this later on and my second speaker will be elaborating more
on this.
● If they say other people are following Jair Bolsonaro and Donald Trump
misinformation, give us examples of those who have been doing so. Even in this
best case Proposition cannot just prohibit every world leader so that they would not
be able to use their social media accounts. Just because of one person’s mistake,
how is it justified that propositions prohibit all leaders?
Arguments 5 min (3:00)
1. Why should Presidents and Heads of States be denied the freedom of having
their own personal social media accounts explicitly? Against proposition
Everybody has the right to express their opinions and ideas. This is a guaranteed right in the
Constitution of a majority of countries and is against the law to hinder it. There are a lot of
users such as celebrities and other people having almost the same popularity, power and
influence over the people such as singers, actors, etc.
● Jack Maynard emerged as well as racist and homophobic.
● The Swedish YouTube star PewDiePie was accused of anti-Semitism later in
the same month.
If they spread misinformation, racist views on vulnerable groups and minorities, shouldn’t
they be held accountable as well? If yes, how is the proposition going to do so? If not, what
is the distinction between two groups who have the very same power, popularity and
influence and why exempt them especially?

2. Proposition said public platform. Why is it better than otherpublic platform?

Social media is the only media that is not really biased as opposed to the other
forms of media such as news channels and newspapers which are controlled
by third party political parties or other individuals and groups. This is therefore
the best way for rulers to reach the people. If not completely unbiased, it is
less biased than the existing traditional ways of disseminating information.
Even in their best case scenario wherein social media is a huge mess of bias and third party
control, it is still unarguably the fastest method to spread information and the easiest and
most convenient way for the rulers to reach the people. Now why is this important to this
debate? Third question.

3. Why is it better that Presidents and Heads of State have personal social media
accounts? Why is it better than Presidents and Heads of States get to show
both sides of their personality?
In the best case scenario of proposition wherein there are rulers all over who misuse their
power to show racist behaviour and offend. The people would get to know their leaders
better. To get better insight of those who are ruling is valuable information for the voters to
decide who will rule next. At the end of the day, all power rests within the people themselves,
so such misinformation and racist comments, etc. people can remove those who form the
government accordingly. This will act as a form of education for the voters. Almost half the
world is online and can easily access this.
We see in the short term there will be loss of lives but in the long term, we are creating a
better society because we give a chance for the government to reform and change because
like I said, at the end of the day, it is the voters having the power to change the government
and those in power.
This long term effect has been ignored by team proposition and this allows the power to be
in the right hands.

Interaction between leaders and people

Former Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren: "Today there are few
alternatives as far-reaching and effective, with very wide audiences and young audiences,
as. It is another tool that enables them to communicate with other diplomats and journalists,’’
Twitter is used by politicians including former US president Barack Obama, cabinet
members in Chile, and politicians in Germany, Japan and India.
These politicians use the platform to communicate with their constituents. Users may send
questions and the congresspeople can directly respond. They may also self-promote.

Why is this important? This creates a better relationship between the people and their rulers
which can improve the trust and faith of the people in the government and their decisions
and policies.

If the jury believes in a world where there is space for change, reform and long term benefits,
then they side with team opposition.

SUMMARISATION 30s

What other examples than Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro does your side give?
They have been elected and are therefore are more responsible

Second Speaker
3 MINUTES REBUTTAL
5 MIN ARGUMENT

Asin Second Speech:

Ladies and gentlemen,the team proposition started off discrediting the heads later into her
speech, they started supporting them. And caring about them.
REBUTTALS
● Why is it justified on their side to prohibit all those presidents and heads of
state?
● They have been elected and are therefore more responsible. Does this mean
the celebrities are okay to give the very same offensive comments and racist
comments and get away with it.
● What guarantee does team proposition have that these same presidents and
heads of state will not do such comments on this ‘other public platform’?
● They only focus on trump and jair bolsonaro. The world already knows how
corrupt Trump is and he has been impeached from his position. We have given
you the solution for irresponsible governments already in the first speaker
speech.
● If they can offend in social media, so can they in their speeches.
Arguments:
What happens when the Presidents have their personal accounts?
1. It impacts the services to the community
There can be hundreds of organisations who do community services in a country. But most
of them require more funding or people and may be stuck in financial or economical
problems. In order for the head to even be aware of such organisations set up to help the
country or state, to reach out to them, these social media accounts provide a platform for
these leaders to help these organisations with their problems by maybe funding or finding
people for volunteering etc. Now here’s the question, why do we think that the President or
head of state will help these organisations?

When there is a team set up to help the poor, aid the homeless, support the suffering or
even to promote a green country or state, these organisations are helping to improve the
rates of the earlier mentioned. This in turn is raising the global status as well as its economic
status and in turn improving the country or state. So, when a president or head is elected,
they are elected for the purpose of looking after the country, doing work for the betterment of
the country. So they HAVE TO support such organisations. When we see that even after
these organisations reach out to their leaders through these social media platforms, but their
leaders didn't pay attention to it, this will affect their status as president or head as well as
result in protest or question on that matter by the people in that online platform and it is
noted by many others. This we see helps the people to get to know their elected leader
much better and allows them to correct their decisions in the future, as such in a Democracy,
which brings me to my next argument.

2. Social Media is a big platform for holding campaigns

In the US election of 2012, Barack Obama had 21 million followers while his competitor Mitt
Romney had only 1.3 million followers. Both of them spread their agenda through social
media which was their personal account. And we all know who won that election. This
proves that actually personal social accounts help people understand the people and help
politicians help understand the people. So here we see how these online platforms are a
mode of communication between the leader and its people. We see that by communicating
with people, we start identifying the various issues of the people in various areas and
therefore bringing about AWARENESS to both the president or head as well as the rest of
the population. We believe that communications between the president and the people of the
respective country or state becomes very important in bringing about awareness and helping
them however they can.

3. Interaction between presidents / Heads of states and the people

The people of the country need to and have to know the character of their presidents and
heads of states. The comments of these heads of states reveal their real face, their real way
of thinking, and the citizens of the country have the right to know that. If you prohibit them
from having social media accounts, you are blocking one of the big ways in which citizens
get to know their presidents and heads of states. You are stripping off a huge opportunity
for the people to learn about their presidents and heads of states. Without knowing their
presidents and heads of states properly, it’ll only lead to the people electing a person who
does not share the people's ideas. Social media helps to expose those presidents and
heads of states who aren’t true to their country/state.

Comparative:

A world without presidents and heads of states having their own social media
accounts will lead to major (negative) consequences.
1. Less communication between presidents / heads of states and the people
2. Lesser campaigns
 3. Impacts on civil services to community

On the prop side we see that prohibiting these leaders their accounts are also
restricting their communications with their people, various problems on all the small
cities or towns or issues whose information have not been known by the government
or the president or head of state, lesser campaigns, and even loss of life due to
misinformation, but on opp it is the complete opposite of these negative
consequences of the proposition side. On opp we see more communications, more
information of the country/state, more campaigns etc.

Here we see that on the proposition side there're a lot of major problems of the
country blocked from the eyes of the president and the heads are limited to the
country’s information to only what they are reported by the officials. On opposition,
we allow the head to see the country for themselves. To analyse their country, and act
accordingly at the same time providing the people to voice their opinions on the
decisions of their leaders.

Social Media is the only free platform left where everybody can express their opinion.
Team prop is destroying that. By prohibiting these heads from having social media
accounts, you are stripping off their right to express their opinion.

If the jury believes in a world where there is space for change, reform and long term benefits,
then they side with team opposition.

REPLY
Even we care about the minorities and the vulnerable groups. But we also want to
help not just them but the entire society and the nation as a whole through our long
term benefits.
1. Is misinformation really having that great of an impact?
a. They keep mentioning they will give more examples but Trump and Jair
Bolsonaro are the only examples that they have given. This is a minority case
and this does not justify why propositions should do this to all heads of state
and presidents.
b. Short term loss of lives might be there. Long term benefits is that
irresponsible governments ‘who propose wars’ will be changed a lot more
easily because more and more voters who have the power to change the
rulers will be able to reelect them with the solid and concrete background
information to do so. This is a form of education for the voters.
Due to misinformation we may be losing lives but it's in the short term, in the
long term we see we are actually SAVING more lives because we are not
only having regulators in already existing social media, but also we are
changing the irresponsible governments by educating our voters.
2. Is it justified to prohibit only the Presidents or Heads of States and not others
in power to access social media accounts?
a. Trump, Jair Bolsonaro is the only example that they have given. This is a
minority case and this does not justify why propositions should do this to all
heads of state and presidents. Just because they are elected and are
responsible for what they do does not mean that they should leave alone the
 large number of celebrities who also are popular and influential but also
irresponsible in their actions and words. Suddenly, the same people who do
the same things are divided on their rise to power and proposition will not be
just in imparting justice.
b. They give another alternative for social media which is some other public
platform, and they have also said that there would be regulating bodies to
prevent wrong information from spreading. My first speaker has already told
you that there is monitoring in social media such as Twitter and what
improvement is there in this public platform that makes propositions distinct
from opposition?
We create a better, safer, world which holds irresponsible governments accountable
for what wrong they do, saving more lives. If the jury believes in a world where there
is space for change, reform and long term benefits, then they side with team
opposition.

Aryan: Today Team PROP tells us that we must prohibit the sole means by which the
people interact with their leaders. And through PROPs case we replace the
transparent wall with an opaque wall where all the people get from their leaders is
information related to the state and nothing about the leader himself. So if the jury
believes in a world where the universal right to speech is upheld If the jury believes in a
world where there is space for change, reform and long term benefits, then the jury sides
with team OPP.

25 JUNE 2020
3) THBT governments should remove controversial historical monuments.

First Speech:
If the jury believes in a world where we respect the dignity of the vulnerable minorities and
fulfill the debts that we owe them, uplift them and give them care and respect till the extent
we can.

Definition:
Remove: Remove them from public spaces. If they are unmovable and stationary
monuments such as Mount Rushmore would be closed away for preservation from
public access and shut down and no longer available to people for visits.
Controversial: An object is controversial when it brings about controversy or public
disagreement
Historical monuments: Old monuments that hold historical importance
Controversial historical monuments - Old monuments that bring about controversy
among people.
Problem:
Injustice to the vulnerable minorities and they feel dishonored at the cost of honoring the
people who have done acts that violate human rights and powerful people who mistreated
them historically.

Signposting
1. Ethics, justification to why controversial historical monuments must be
removed, and why especially such monuments only
2. Impacts of such monuments on the population such as bad influences and the
overall representation of the monument
3. Rebutting and summing up the case

1. Ethics
● Having a statue and honoring people who benefited from slave trade and harm
against vulnerable minority, from denying people human rights, is extremely wrong,
These monuments should be removed and should be dishonored. They celebrate
and glorify the worst of history, and people, you can’t have such people in a statue in
the 21 century. Why is this so important?
● Minorities are so important because promoting and protecting their identity
prevents forced assimilation and the loss of cultures, religions and languages—the
basis of the richness and diversity of the world and therefore part of the global
heritage. We want diversity and plural identities to be not only tolerated but protected
and respected. This is what makes each one of us unique and different from each
other and we on proposition are going to support it by raising them up in the society.
● We on side proposition also equally respect history. Our past defines us and my
second speaker will truly establish the importance that this motion must be
implemented if the jury believes in a world where respecting our past and those
around us.
● For example: Bristol a statue of the slave trader Edward Colston.

Point of Information

2. How is justification to why controversial historical monuments must be removed?

● We understand there were great people respected for their good actions and
popularity, but it should no longer be celebrated. This is a new era, where people
will not look up to the tyrannous murderers, racists or unjust and unfair figures.
● For example: The Valley of the Fallen is a memorial for those who died in the
Spanish Civil War, but it's also the final resting place of bloody Spanish dictator,
Francisco Franco.
● We are not eliminating history, we are removing one of the biggest symbols of
social injustice. Education about such great figures and history about such figures
are present there in so many other ways and media - such as the internet, books,
articles etc.
● Even if they were mostly good, we are still not dismantling or breaking them down
but only removing them away from the public. Plus, it cannot be stressed more that it
is not the statue that is most important in the honoring and representation of such
figures, but the history and the knowledge and the values and the lessons we learn
 from these figures. We are not removing all the history, but instead just the physical
representation of it which is the statue.

3. Why should other monuments be exempted from such form of exempting publicity?

● Other monuments first of all are simply not controversial and do not stand for bad
values or wrong. They just simply have no reason to be in public spaces.
● Secondly, other monuments are less prone to attack or being dismantled and that is
why the controversial monuments especially have to be protected and kept away for
preservation.

SUMMARIZATION

If the jury believes in a world where we respect the dignity of the vulnerable minorities and if
not be able to do them complete justice and fulfill all the debts that we owe them, at least
uplift them and give the care and respect till the extent we can.

REPLY (SPEAK FAST TO COMPLETE EVERYTHING!!!)

What does opposition give you?
● History is important and should be given importance
● These people have done good things as well and deserve to be known
Even our side protects history and wants to respect the great people of the past. But we not
only do that but we also protect the minority as well and protect statues in the long term.

What have we told you in response?

Even if they were mostly good, it cannot be stressed more that it is not the statue that is
most important in the honoring and representation of such figures, but the history and the
knowledge and the values and the lessons we learn from these figures. We are not removing
all the history, but instead just the physical representation of it which is the statue.

Clashes

1. Principle
a. We are defending the rights of vulnerable people and minorities but we are
also respecting and upholding history for the generations to come by
preserving them and protecting them.
b. Opposition is not only disregarding the minorities and still allowing these bad
values and immorality many wrong figures stood for to continue existing in
physical form of statues and monuments but they are also not allowing for
these monuments and statues to be protected away as these are the ones
which are more prone to being dismantled and broken down.
2. Effects
a. On our side, we are having positive impacts such as taking that one step into
respecting and giving representation to minorities and also removing certain
biases foreigners may have towards such countries or people who glorify it
which completely neutralises their arguments about income derived from
historical tourist attractions though it is completely unethical to prioritize
money over minorities.
b. Opposition is only fueling the fire of anger of such minorities and upsetting the
vulnerable people even more by allowing such monuments to continue
existing in public spaces. According to protestors of the global campaign
going on, there are many monuments which do not deserve to stand. In the
 future, such monuments will be broken down in case unfortunately any kind of
police violence or any misconduct is done against minorities.

What do we need to prove to win this debate:

Why is it justified to remove controversial historical monuments?
Will it have a good impact if this motion is implemented?

What is your position or stance?

Protection of minorities and doing them justice for the harms that they had to endure.

What are we trading off?

Tourism and countries benefiting from tourism
They have contributed a lot and might have been good human individuals
Special Experience of learning from statues

Second Speech:
Controversial monuments giving publicity:
Their being given publicity in a way in which what they did not glorified. They are
available as information so that people who want to learn about that specific history
they belong to. They are known but what they do isn't portrayed as a memorable
incident.

They talked about how slavery is good, and the success of these people, but they rnt
successful. Their controversial. Even the motion states that we r talking about only
those kind of monuments.

(Say it fast ) BEST CASE SCENARIO OF OPP Even if they were mostly good, we are
still not dismantling or breaking them down but only removing them away from the public.
Plus, it cannot be stressed more that it is not the statue that is most important in the
honoring and representation of such figures, but the history and the knowledge and the
values and the lessons we learn from these figures. We are not removing all the history, but
instead just the physical representation of it which is the statue.

Bad influence:

- Affects the minority communities and indegenous people

At the beginning of the props case we explained how minorities and people of color
were put down and discredited. We see how this was built out of knowledge that was
undeveloped, based on knowledge that we disagree and hv changed in the present
This we see affects the minorities indegenous and all the people who were put down.
➔ -Black Lives Matters protesters in Bristol have pulled down a statue of the slave
trader Edward Colston. Demonstrators attached a rope to the statue on Colston
Avenue before pulling it to the ground. They then rolled it down the street before
pushing it into Bristol Harbour. PEOPLE WILL NOT DESTROY SUCH STATUES IN
THE FUTURE BECAUSE IF SUCH POLICE VIOLENCE HAPPENS IT DOES NOT
ALLOW ANY PUBLIC ACCESS TO SUCH MONUMENTS. WHY THESE
 MONUMENTS ARE SO IMPORTANT AND NEEDED TO BE SHUT DOWN AS
COMPARED TO OTHER MONUMENTS? BECAUSE THEY STAND FOR BAD
MORALS AND ARE MORE PRONE TO BEING DISMANTLED AND BROKEN
DOWN THEREFORE WE ARE PROTECTING THEM AND PROVIDING THE
METHODS TO PRESERVE THEM.
➔ Evidence: Protesters tore down the statue of the 17th Century slave trader
Edward Colston and pushed it into the city's harbour, in one of the most
symbolic moments of a series of demonstrations around the country.
➔ An estimated 10,000 people had gathered in Bristol to demonstrate last
weekend and many said the events felt empowering but they hoped for real
change in the city.

- Overall image perceived by the public.

We see when a place which has such a kind of monument, which disgraces the
morals of humanity, gives out a wrong image about the state towards the tourists
visiting from various nations. It shows how a bad figure who promoted the ideals
which were considered wrong in the past and present are being COMMEMORATED.
We see these statues were built a long time ago, and based on the development and
the education of that specific period, its rules and ideals are free or fair to the ideals
of today. So, in order to pay justice to its viewers, and at the same time protect the
dignity of the state or country, we remove these monuments. We see that these
monuments represent a bad idea since the beginning of time. They were wrong even
then, but because they had more power, they were glorified and that's how such
monuments were built in their names. So they were the monuments that wanted to be
taken down a long time ago but it couldn't be taken down to reason depending on
their situations which dwell with the conditions of that time. So at present, when we
are more educated, when we are more moral, when we have developed the laws for
the greater good, it becomes an obligation for us to see that the people of the present
are respected in accordance to the laws implemented in this current scenario. So,
with respect to the laws and the people, we as a proposition are simply removing
these monuments away from the eyes of the people to prevent hurting their feelings,
and protecting the face of the area highlighting the immoral statue.

Before I begin with the comparative, are there any POI’s??

Comparative

In our world we are:

1. Giving justice to the vulnerable minority
2. Protecting history

We are giving justice to the vulnerable minority, we are giving them the feeling of
security, they no longer have to see the people who killed their kind, being
commemorated. We are giving them hope and belief that the ideology of killing and
hurting their kind is no more. We are giving them a safe place to live in.
While team opposition says to leave it as it is, to leave these vulnerable minorities to
still feel insecure and uncomfortable we give you justice to both sides by providing a
solution. They want to commemorate people who have treated minorities so unfairly,
so unjustifiably, have treated them as slaves. So what is our solution?

We are also protecting these monuments. It’s not like we are destroying this history,
that would be really bad, but what we are doing is preserving and protecting these
monuments. We are respecting these monuments. Also, we are protecting them from
further harm that could be done by the people.

While the other side just wants to leave it there. They want to let it be thrown into
rivers by people who are offended by them. They just want it to be hated by the
people.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are definitely giving you a better world, where the
vulnerable are given justice and the history is protected. Vote for proposition.

Third Speech: Monuments look at both the past and the future while rooting us firmly
in the present.The Yakusuni Shrine, located in Tokyo, Japan, was built in 1869. it was
established to "commemorate and honor the achievement of those who dedicated
their precious lives for their country." Almost 2.5 million names are inscribed inside
the shrine — reportedly including the names of at least 14 "Class A" war criminals.Of
those names, there's a general who has been held directly responsible for the attack
on the US fleet at Pearl Harbor, a general who ordered a battle that resulted in a
massacre that killed 200,000 civilians in 1937, and the architects of Japan's alliance
with Germany and Italy during World War II. So should we be honouring all these
people who have done injustice to the other people.If the jury wants to see justice
delivered to the innocent, vulnerable and the discredited people of the past, then the
jury sides with team PROP.

Mount Rushmore
Christopher Columbus
● The Valley of the Fallen is a memorial for those who died in the Spanish Civil
War, but it's also the final resting place of bloody Spanish dictator Francisco
Franco
● Infamous revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara fought for the rights of the poor,
inciting passions along the way. While some condemn his violent methods or
philosophy, to the farmworkers in the town of La Higuera, he remains “Saint Ernesto.”
There, on the spot where the leader of a guerilla Marxist movement was captured
and executed, residents dedicated a bust in his honor in 1997.
● There are 775 Confederate monuments and statues in public

POI
Ethics and Impact: We shouldn't honour such people with horrific ideals, benefiting
themselves from the suffering of others. These statues have never had a positive impact on
anyone. It goes against the morals of humanity.

1. Not bad

They have hurt the vulnerable and minorities, they have killed their kind. Even if they have
done a few good things, they have still killed many people. Plus, we are not destroying the
monuments.

2. Form of education

There are many other ways you can learn about them. There are books, online articles,
pictures. These monuments are not the only way to learn about them.

3. History

We are preserving and protecting history. We are not destroying the monuments, but are
protecting and preserving it.

REPLY (SPEAK FAST TO COMPLETE EVERYTHING!!!)

What does opposition give you?
● History is important and should be given importance
● These people have done good things as well and deserve to be known
Even our side protects history and wants to respect the great people of the past. But we not
only do that but we also protect the minority as well and protect statues in the long term.

What have we told you in response?

Even if they were mostly good, it cannot be stressed more that it is not the statue that is
most important in the honoring and representation of such figures, but the history and the
knowledge and the values and the lessons we learn from these figures. We are not removing
all the history, but instead just the physical representation of it which is the statue.
Furthermore, we said if there's anyone who would like to know their history, it will be given
publicity in their libraries or museums or even online.Not only that we said we are removing it
from the eyes of the public, but not destroying it. WE also mentioned how we will be
protecting it.

Clashes

3. Principle
a. We are defending the rights of vulnerable people and minorities but we are
also respecting and upholding history for the generations to come by
preserving them and protecting them.
b. Opposition is not only disregarding the minorities and still allowing these bad
values and immorality many wrong figures stood for to continue existing in
physical form of statues and monuments but they are also not allowing for
these monuments and statues to be protected away as these are the ones
which are more prone to being dismantled and broken down.
4. Effects
a. On our side, we are having positive impacts such as taking that one step into
respecting and giving representation to minorities and also removing certain
biases foreigners may have towards such countries or people who glorify it
 which completely neutralises their arguments about income derived from
historical tourist attractions though it is completely unethical to prioritize
money over minorities.
b. Opposition is only fueling the fire of anger of such minorities and upsetting
the vulnerable people even more by allowing such monuments to continue
existing in public spaces. According to protestors of the global campaign
going on, there are many monuments which do not deserve to stand. In the
future, such monuments will be broken down in case unfortunately any kind of
police violence or any misconduct is done against minorities.

Proposition Opposition

Why is the debate? This debate exists as these
statues come off as offensive to
many vulnerable communities and
minorities (especially black
people). These statues glorify and
celebrate slavery, they glorify and
celebrate the worst parts of
history. These statues represent
an affront to humanity, they honor
slavery. We should not be
honoring people who benefited
from slavery,
This debate stands because
people who have overcome slavery
haven’t been recognized for what
they have been through. These
statues are a part of history. We
should look closely towards our
past, even if it is much dirtier and
messier than we want. By
removing these statues, you are
removing a part of history. By
bringing down these statues, you
are erasing a part of history, even if
it is a bad one.We should
celebrate the fight for right.

Definitions/ Commemorate- To show respect Commemorate-To recall or

Clarifications to something, honor something or
to celebrate it.
Slavery is any system in which
principles of property law are
applied to people, allowing
individuals to own, buy and sell
other individuals.
recognize something.
Slavery is any system in which
principles of property law are
applied to people, allowing
individuals to own, buy and sell
other individuals.

What do you need to Side Proposition must convince
prove? the jury that these statues signify a
dark past of the minorities and
offend them. They celebrate and
honor the worst parts of human
history. Having a statue of
someone who treated humans like
objects, is complete stupidity.
Removing these statues will help
to make many people feel more
comfortable in places which has
We need to prove that these
statues represent an important
battle of the people to abolish
slavery. These statues are a part of
history and by removing them, you
are picking out a part of history.
They are kept to remember the
fight black people had to put up to
attain basic human rights.
Sometimes these statues are
controversial too. The people
 suffered slave trade before.
What is the Valuing the vulnerable
Value/moral/message communities.
? Respecting their freedom from
slavery.
Strategy We would only remove statues
that have brought harm to society
or the ones that glorify slave
traders. We will place these
statues in museums later on so
that the people can learn about
black people's human rights
struggle.
Arguments 1. These statues convey the
wrong message and celebrates
slavery.
● -Slavery is a morally wrong
concept, and took years to
abolish. It is unacceptable
to celebrate it. Statues
respecting people like
Edward Colston and
Robert Milligan are
offensive to the people.
● Having a statue and
honoring people who
benefited from slave trade,
from denying people
human rights, is extrealy
wrong, These atues should
be removed and should be
dishonored. They celebrate
and glorify the worst of
history, and people, you
can’t have a slaver in a
statue in the 21 century.
➔ -Black Lives Matters
protesters in Bristol have
pulled down a statue of the
slave trader Edward
Colston. Demonstrators
attached a rope to the
whose statue is put up, might have
been involved in slavery, but they
might have also done things that
has helped the country as a whole.
Valuing the history of a nation.
Valuing the fight black people had
to put up.
We will add new plaques which will
help people understand the past,
instead of erasing it.
1. These statues represent the
lives of people affected by slavery.
➔ The battle against slavery
waged for decades,
however mere words
cannot describe the
atrocities that people were
forced to endure. In time,
people will forget the extent
of their history, if all that
they have left of such pasts
are only in writing.
➔ Nobody truly thinks of
themselves as a villain.
Thus, different versions of
the same stories are told.
➔ Removing statues is like
erasing history. Statues
should be preserved as
they teach us about our
history. Statues shouldn’t
be removed, instead new
plaques should be added to
educated people about the
person, and all the good
and bad things he/she has
done.
➔ Sometimes there are
controversies about a
 statue on Colston Avenue
before pulling it to the
ground. They then rolled it
down the street before
pushing it into Bristol
Harbour.
Ethics and Impact: We shouldn't
honour such people with horrific
ideals, benefiting themselves from
the suffering of others. These
statues have never had a positive
impact on anyone. It goes against
the morals of humanity.
person. He/She might have
done good and bad things
(bad now, not then)
Example, Cecil Rhodes, a
19th Century businessman
and politician in southern
Africa, from Oxford
University. He contributed a
lot of money to the
university but many people
argue he represented a
racist outlook on the world.

Ethics and Impact; People will not

understand the depth of what
slavery once was. It is morally
wrong to take away statues that
might teach people about the
impact that slavery had on lives.

Clashes ➢ Humanity vs. History

➢ Morality vs. Ethics

26 JUNE 2020
4) This house would ban all medical procedures or cosmetic products intended to
change an individual's racial appearance.

Imagine a person who is uncomfortable in his own skin. Imagine being unaccepted in the
rest of the society and just not being able to fit in with their co-workers and friends.
Constantly being pressured to change himself but not being able to do so because
something that was normal and allowed all the while suddenly became illegal because it's
banned. Their discomfort and their depression because they literally have no choice.

Clarifications IF REQUIRED
Ban: officially or legally prohibit all medical procedures and cosmetic products intended to
change an individual racial appearance

Signposting
1. Attacking the model, bodily autonomy and right to choose, why it is important
to have a choice or alternative.
2. Economic losses such as loss of jobs and the downfall of industry, the rise of
a black market
3. Rebutting and summarising the case
Rebuttal
● We accept that there is pressure on the minorities to change themselves and choose
the only alternative that exists. We also accept that culture and diversity is important
to the richness of the world. Just because we ban the products and practices there
won’t actually be a difference in racism because it is the people's mindset and their
perspective that we need to change. Without changing this mindset, racism is
bound to continue. The day we change the way we think, the day individuals feel
loved and accepted for who they really are, that day, that is the day when they will
not even bother about these products ever again.
● Let us just assume the racial minorities and the vulnerable people will get the
support they need, but proposition has forgotten the fact then that moment
onwards, the majority would never want to look after them or their needs ever again.
Why? Because they feel that they have solved the problem and that they are in no
debt, they owe nothing to these people and have no responsibilities.
● Banning is not the solution. Assuming that the proposition’s case is in any way
true that cosmetic procedures are bad for them, then this is not the solution
because if this is so bad, then educating the consumers about the bad effects of such
cosmetic procedures is the right way to go. What is the use of straightforward
denying something that was so normal all the while without letting them know why
they are being denied for? The society will never change and this social injustice will
continue to exist.
● If the proposition is so concerned about the health of the population, then why
don’t they ban all the cosmetic procedures and products because in reality, all
cosmetic products have harmful chemicals that can have detrimental effects
on the health? If they are going to do so, then how do they approach it and if
not, why is there a distinction between these cosmetic products that alter
racial appearance and standard cosmetic products and why only protect the
racial minorities when you can ban all the cosmetics and save the world?
POI
Arguments
● Bodily autonomy and right to choose
Bodily autonomy is defined as the right to self governance over one's own body without
external influence or coercion. It is generally considered to be a fundamental human right.
Bodily autonomy relates to the concept of affirmative consent to allow any external force.
Any individual regardless of their color or race has the right to have whichever procedures
and use whichever cosmetics on their body.
They also have the right to choose the choices that attract them and that they feel is best
suitable for them. The same way we get a haircut, a facial, straighten your hair, etc. this just
helps us look more smarter and more confident. Especially women are affected the most,
which is another social injustice.
POI
● Why is it important to have an alternative?
A. Depriving bodily autonomy is detrimental to the mental health of such already socially
vulnerable people. People who want to opt for this alternative which is now
completely banned will go into depression and may self-harm. Imagine the situation
of the
B. Helps them fit in and feel more comfortable in the environment that they might be in.
This helps them to be more confident and have self-esteem which has a good impact
 on their overall mental health and productivity and efficiency.
Any POI’s to be accepted her

SUMMARISATION; Bodily autonomy and right to choose, why it is so important to

have an alternative.
The day we change the way we think, the day individuals feel loved and accepted for who
they really are, that day, that is the day when they will not even bother about these products
ever again. Ladies and Gentlemen I have never been prouder to oppose.

Reply
What has the proposition given you?
Proposition has only focused on the emotional aspects and completely ignored
reality, taking you to a utopian world. We as opposition pulled you out of it and showed
you the real world, the truth. We've shown you that racism exists and it is going to go out
very fast. In order for the present to stop giving in to their lives and to survive the present till
this issue is resolved, its best these products exist. Besides, a large number of people RELY
and DEPEND on these products to feel comfortable and start loving themselves.
Giving in to the rest of the society and loss of diversity. There is societal pressure
These cosmetic products are racist
What did we say?
There is societal pressure and we are the ones giving them the solution out of that societal
pressure.
Well even in the best case scenario of the proposition that these products are racist, are
reducing diversity and giving in the rest, they themselves are not solving it either because
they create a black market and only increase the use of such cosmetics. They have not
attacked our loss of jobs at all.
1. Who satisfies the minorities?
a. Bodily autonomy and the right to choose is if not completely denied, at
least restricted and limited for the minorities on their side. They are making
them feel worse and less comfortable. People will pressure them to change
their skin color but this is not how you should solve the problem because the
proposition is still not changing the mindset of the people which is more
important than just banning it without educating them about the defects of
using them
Alternative is important to help them to prevent self harm and depression.
b. They just finish their work just like that and just wash their hands off by just
assuming that this just solves all the problems. If this would ever do any
benefit at all, then that moment onwards, people will never look to take care
of them ever again because they feel that they have no responsibility and
nothing that they owe them.
2. Effects
a. Loss of lives and destruction of lives of people who work in these industries. This
leads to an economic and social breakdown of the society. We also see that the
people will feel hatred against these minorities. This will create a worse negative bias
against these minorities.
Black market is there. They said that there is no black market because it is illegal
now and nobody will do it. That is not true because of the pressure on such people
by the society which proposition says exists and also the very common concept of
 the lure of the forbidden fruit is what draws them to it. My second speaker has
already said that the same mistake was made in banning drugs and alcohol.
Reduces the diversity of the world. Does that mean that we should legalize drugs?
Well my third speaker has told you that that is not what we want to do. We disagree
with their solution of banning and they completely forget that most importantly,
propositions themselves are not creating the world where this so-called ‘’social harm’’
is more prevalent in their world due to the existence of a black market.

The day we change the way we think, the day individuals feel loved and accepted for who
they really are, that day, that is the day when they will not even bother about these products
ever again. Ladies and Gentlemen I have never been prouder to oppose.

SECOND SPEAKER
Intro: L & G, think of the impact the loss of a job due to these racism protests has on
one individual. Pitiful right? Put yourself in their shoes - how would you feel - the
feeling of hatred against the people who lost you YOUR JOB. The people who
forced this motion to be implemented so that they lose their jobs. Now imagine
the take down of a whole company. Several jobs are lost. Several people are living
on the edge of their lives. 100 times the impact and 100 times the disruption of that
section of the society. If this is the negative impact of one case that occurs from
banning cosmetic products, then this is just the beginning of a huge economic and
social breakdown of the entire nation.

Argument:
Prop: How these products will ban racism
Opp: they don't, rebut more in my speech

Expected:
People will lose jobs
PROP Rebuttal: People can opt for similar fields.
OPP Rebuttal: They SPECIALIZE IN THAT ONE PARTICULAR FIELD OF SURGERY
PROP Rebuttal: Short term effect and in the long term people will get jobs back.
OPP Rebuttal: 1. Not all will end up with a job in the long term
2. Even if they all get jobs, a huge part of these people's lives have been
wasted which could otherwise have contributed to the overall development of
the industry and the nation’s economy. So the short term effect is substantially
worse and detrimental than the long term effect when we weigh them out.

1. Underground usage of such cosmetic products

Increase in crimes and usage.

I will be accepting POI’s

2. Effects on the society:

● Many people feel that all that makes them beautiful is being fair and by banning such
products many people will feel uncomfortable. This could also cause depression and
 in extreme cases even suicide.

POI’s break

Economic losses - job losses,. People will blame the racial minorities and have hatred
and anger towards them.
● How people lose their jobs
● How it impacts people
● How these impacted people face depression
● How Both communities face a problem and disrupts the society.

Underground usage of such cosmetic products

*Increase in crimes and usage.

The day we change the way we think, the day individuals feel loved and accepted for who
they really are, that day, that is the day when they will not even bother about these
products ever again.
This is why i stand proud on side opposition

Aryan: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN TODAY THE PROP HASNT EVEN LISTENED TO 1
OF OUR SPEECHES. Number of employees of the U.S. cosmetic industry in 2016 is
63,816. These employees will lose their jobs and only a minority of people will be able
to attain a new one. Should this be done at the cost of an experiment that has no
probability of success or logical explanation?. Why does it have no probability?
because racism will not be eradicated or even reduced as it is the society we need to
change and by banning these products we just generate more hate towards the
innocent minority in the society. So, if the jury believes in a world where racism is
reduced and not increased then the jury sides with team OPP
● END::::::: The day we change the way we think, the day individuals feel loved and
accepted for who they really are, that day, that is the day when they will not even
bother about these products ever again.

The way ppl treat u is a statement about who they are as a human being its not a
statement about you.
● The day we change the way we think, the day individuals feel loved and accepted for
who they really are, that day, that is the day when they will not even bother about
these products ever again.
 Proposition
Why is the debate This debate is here because of the
growing racial discrimination and racial
problems in the society.In the current
scenario we a lot of hate crimes on the
basis on skin colour and by such
medical procedures we are validating
the ideas that if one doesn’t fit into the
Eurocentric beauty ideals,
Definitions/ medical procedure: a course of action
intended to achieve a result in the
Clarifications
delivery of healthcare relating to the
features of the human body
Ban: officially or legally prohibit
something.
cosmetic product: any substance or
mixture intended to be placed in contact
with the various external parts of the
human body or change a feature of the
body.
Racial Appearance: Physical
characteristics (such as facial features,
skin tone) that are typically associated
with a particular race or ethnicity
What do you need to prove We will be proving to you how this will
promote racism and colorism,
invalidating centuries of the POCs fight
against such forms of discrimination and
this just perpetuates the cycle of treating
Eurocentric beauty ideals as the norm
Opposition
This debate is here because we see
that if an individual wants to have his
or her skin colour changed and it is
his or her right of choice and is not
wrong. We see that it is not racist or
wrong to change your skin colour
because you are not promoting
discrimination or in any way saying
being black is wrong.
Ban: officially or legally prohibit
something.
medical procedure: a course of
action intended to achieve a result in
the delivery of healthcare relating to
the features of the human body
cosmetic product: any substance or
mixture intended to be placed in
contact with the various external parts
of the human body or change a
feature of the body.
Racial Appearance: Physical
characteristics (such as facial
features, skin tone) that are typically
associated with a particular race or
ethnicity
We as OPP will be proving to you
that these products do not promote
racism and how it is not wrong to be
able to change features about
yourself. We will also be proving to
you how this is actually an individual's
 and ethinic features as inferior
over their bodies..
What is the ● These products promote and
Value/moral/message push the idea of certain ethinic
features as the standard beauty
whilst others as inferior.
Arguments Model: Cosmetic procedures such as
ethnic plastic surgery and products as
skin whiteners and nose shapers will no
longer be sold or advertised or deemed
acceptable.
1. Promotes dialouge and certain
standard of beauty ideals that
have often treated prevalent
features of ethnic groups as ugly
Such products and practices
contribute to discrimination and
make other skin color people feel
they are inferior.
● This also fuels racists and
proves them right leading to
more racism and causing the
society to evolve but just
backward.
2. These products and practices
also have an adverse effect on
the health of the people
● Effects of skin bleaching( A
technique to change color
i) pigment of the skin are
ii)skin turning dark or too light.
iii)thinning of the skin.
iv)visible blood vessels in the
skin.
v)scarring.
vi)kidney, liver or nerve damage.
right to choice and have autonomy
● Freedom of choice and
bodily autonomy
● Bodily autonomy
- Individual has the right
to have whichever
procedures and use
whichever cosmetics
on their body
3. Banning such products,
practices won't make a
difference.
● Just because we ban the
products and practices there
won’t actually be a difference
in racism because it is the
people's mindset that we need
to change. By banning these
products there won't actually
be a decrease in racism.
● Banning such products won't
actually make a difference as
the people will still continue to
act racist.
4. Effects on the society:
● Many people feel that all that
makes them beautiful is being
fair and by banning such
products many people will feel
uncomfortable. This could also
cause depression and in
extreme cases even suicide.
 Clashes ● Adverse effects on the
people vs Right to Choice
● Does banning these
cosmetic products and
practices actually make a
difference in the
community?
● Which side is morally and
ethically right?
● Do these products
practice and promote
racism ?
● Adverse effects on the
people vs Right to
Choice
● Does banning these
cosmetic products and
practices actually
make a difference in
the community?
● Which side is morally
and ethically right?
● Do these products and
practices promote
racism ?

Team sapphire
This house believes that media coverage of women sport should get as much time
and attention as men sport.

Speaker 1 proposition

This debate exists as women are not treated equally in the field of sports.The media coverage is much less for
women sport as compared to men sports.

Media Coverage:The term media coverage is used to refer to newspapers, social media, online platforms, TV,
news produced by individuals or organisations.

Men sport: Sports that are especially played by male gender.

Women sport: sports that are especially played by female gender.

Team proposition needs to prove that women must be given equal media coverage as compared to men.
This gives equal chances in the field of sports to women as both men and women give the same amount of
dedication for the sport they play.
Inequality

Descrimination on gender

Inequality between genders in every field has been taking place for centuries. Yet somehow women are given a
weaker advantage than the men for both income and fame.

Let's have a quick comparative study between the two cases.

Women make up 40% of all participants in sports—yet somehow they receive only 4% of sports media coverage.

With men over 96.23% of media coverage, it's not just that they receive huge profit and income and sponsors, but
the whole view of the society changes.

This lack of coverage also tees up a shortage of role models for girls in sports—and if you can’t see it, you can’t be
it. Girls drop out of sports at two times the rate of boys, according to the Women’s Sports Foundation, but not for
lack of passion or skill; women’s and girls’ sports programs are underfunded and often under promoted.
But when promotion of women sports is equal to that of the men, then the view of the society changes which
influences other people and hence women would be treated equally like the men in the field of sports.
With this my argument splits into two parts:
Effect:

a. Change in the perspective of the society.

b. How do media promote participation of women in sports

Change in the perspective of the society:

Media companies play an important role when it comes to affecting the mindset of their audiences. This issue should
not be ignored by media companies as this might lead to the decrease of participation of females in sports.From a
young age gender roles are assigned to boys and girls. There is a mentality where girls should convey a more
gentle, submissive and caring role in life, while boys should be tough, competitive and dominant.However the media
change the view of the society by promoting female sports equally with the male sports. Therefore, it becomes
easier for audiences to comprehend and respect female athletes on television and print media. When a female
athlete is being featured on any form of media coverage, audiences would respect them as an athlete as they should
be with time.

How do the media promote participation of women in sports?

Media is key to overcoming barriers to women’s participation and progressively achieving gender equality
in sport. Sports fandom, the kind that leads to website traffic, higher ratings, and newspaper subscriptions, is about
more than coverage of a tournament or big race or championship game. So much of fan culture relies on getting to
know athletes and building anticipatory excitement, understanding strategy, knowing statistics, and arguing about
contracts, trades, and lineup changes. All of that takes consistent, day-in and day-out coverage that makes an
audience hungry for more.

Hence consistent media coverage is essential for the promotion of women sports.

Obligation of the media.

The role of media in a democratic system has been widely debated. India has the largest democracy in the
world and media has a powerful presence in the country. In recent times Indian media has been subject to
a lot of criticism for the manner in which they have disregarded their obligation to social responsibility.
Dangerous business practices in the field of media have affected the fabric of Indian democracy. Big
industrial conglomerates in the business of media have threatened the existence of pluralistic viewpoints.
Post liberalisation, transnational media organisations have spread their wings in the Indian market with
their own global interests. This has happened at the cost of an Indian media which was initially thought to
be an agent of ushering in social change through developmental programs directed at the non privileged
and marginalised sections of the society. Though media has at times successfully played the role of a
watchdog of the government functionaries and has also aided in participatory communication, a lot still
needs to be done.

Media Exposure of Women’s Sports

Gender inequality, as noted, has many negative consequences for female athletes. In addition to the
unequal type of coverage that female athletes receive, they also receive less overall coverage. Women’s
sports are also perceived as less exciting and slower than men’s sports . In that same study, participants
reported that they had minimal experience with women’s sports and only watched women’s sports if that is
what was on television. The media, though, does not give women’s sports much coverage, minimizing the
frequency of which sports fans view women’s sports. In fact, less than 10% of sports media covers
women’s sports and less than 2% of sports media covers women’s sports that are deemed masculine
Unfortunately, news staff are less likely to recognize this difference than viewers (41), meaning that news
staff may not realize that they are arguably discriminating against female athletes.

Even though the Olympic Games are now offering the same number of sports for women as they do men
as previously noted, the Olympic Games also displays unequal coverage through their networks. For
example, the US women’s basketball team won their fifth consecutive gold medal in 2012, but received
less than half of a minute in prime-time coverage whereas the men’s team who won their second
consecutive gold medal received approximately half of an hour of prime-time coverage (12). Notably,
though, the 2012 Olympic Games, for the first time ever, also provided more coverage of women’s sports
than men’s sports on NBC; however, this coverage was primarily for women’s sports deemed feminine
(e.g., gymnastics) (12).

A study examining ESPN’s SportsCenter and three Los Angeles networks discovered that only 1.4% of
SportsCenter’s coverage and 1.6% of the local networks’ coverage were of women’s sports, the lowest in
at least 20 years (47). Although this study was conducted earlier than 2012, it provides evidence that
women are still receiving less coverage in sports outside of the summer Olympics.

Such misrepresentation of women’s sports has been argued to be responsible for the lack of interest in
women’s sports from sports fans (9, 14, 15) and reinforces the public’s general negative attitudes towards
women (61). As previously argued, this lack of coverage of women’s sports may be holding sports fans
back from developing interest in women’s sports and adapting fan affiliations with women’s sports teams
and athletes (27). The same study also noted that societal expectations also promote divisions between
boys and girls during youth, arguing that this issue is more than just an issue with the media. The media,
however, may play an important role in changing the inequalities women face in sports.

Fairness and Impartiality

Most stories have at least two sides. While there is no obligation to present every side in every piece,
stories should be balanced and add context. Objectivity is not always possible, and may not always be
desirable (in the face for example of brutality or inhumanity), but impartial reporting builds trust and
confidence.

THBT media coverage of women’s sports should get as much time and attention as men’s
sports.(2nd speaker)
Name:pratyush
Speech Expected POI rebuttals

Ladies and gentleman, if the jury believes

in giving everyone equal chance to prove
themselves, if the jury believes that
equality is a principal which cannot be
compromised on then the jury would side
with team proposition

------------------ rebuttals----------------------
Arguments:
1) Comparative study
2) effects

Ladies and gentlemen we must keep it in

mind that when the media started
covering sports, at that time the women
sports had a presence which was next to
zero. Since the start of media coverage of
sports, the attention had always been
given to men’s sport. Since the start as
spoken by my first speaker women’s
sports has not been given adequate
attention. Let’s take a look at what
happens when the adequate attention is
not given to women’s sports.
Media’s principles:
One of the five principles of media
include equality and fairness or
impartiality. If women’s sports is
not given the opportunity of
enough media coverage then one
of the principles of media will be
violated.
Equality in work:
Equality between men and women in the
field of sports is being compromised in
the current status co. we see that due to
the lesser media coverage, even though
the women are doing the exact same
thing as what the men are doing, they
receive lesser attention and appreciation
from the public. This in turn affects their
pay meaning that women are paid
considerably lesser than men in the field
of sports which is completely unethical
considering the fact the equal work
should be given equal pay.
Lesser investments received from
sponsors resulting into almost negligible
growth of the sport for women:
Due to the lesser media coverage, the
sponsors feel less incentivised to invest
their money into women’s sports. Due to
this the training facilities ranging from
gyms to pools to training grounds,
equipment, etc is largely outdated or
lesser in comparison than that what men
receive. This has resulted into lesser skill
development for the players leading to
slower
Current and upcoming women athletes
get discouraged and unmotivated from
continuing with sports.:
Due to the way lesser recognition
received by the women in sports, their
pay, less advanced training facilities,
many of the female athletes end up
giving up sports as a profession and take
up other professions. This not only inflicts
damage on the current generation of
sportswomen but also to the upcoming
generation. The women’s sports
foundation in its research regarding the
reason behind the dropping out of girls
from professional sports academies or
institutes said it was not the lack of skill
but rather the lack of motivation which
includes role models to look up to. This in
turn not only puts the future of sports
under great uncertainty but also that of
womankind as sports play a huge role in
today’s world.
Comparative study.
Ladies and gentlemen let's take a deep
look into what happens and what will
happen in the current status co as
compared to what would happen if
today’s motion on the floor passes.

One side we see in today's status co that

the drop of girls from sports institutes or
the drop of female athletes due to
various reasons such as lack of proper
training facilities to lack of proper pay
and recognition affects the today's and
tomorrow’s spots in a way which no one
would ever want. While on the other
side, that is the team proposition’s side
we see that due to equal media coverage
female athletes get the motivation, the
will as well the necessary requirements
not only to continue playing sports but to
strive to become better at it.

One side we see that because of the

current status co the one of the media's
five principles that is impartiality and
equality gets violated. While on the other
side we see that if this motion gets
passed we see that the media fulfilled its
obligation towards the public.

We see that if the motion on today’s is

passed then the viewers get their choice
to decide on what they wish to watch
whereas on the other side we see that
they have no real choice as to what they
 wish to watch as since the the start of
coverage of sports it had always been the
sports of men which had been covered by
the media, but now we would see that
the viewers would have choice to decide
between what they want to watch.

Most importantly, not caring about

societal pressure, we see that if the
motion on today’s floor passes then the
womankind would finally get the chance
to prove themselves to the public, show
the public how skillful they are, show the
public that they are no less than men in
the field of sorts, finally get a chance to
prove to the world that they have been
denied from the start of media coverage.

This house would ban private cars in big cities.

opposition

1st speaker
MODAL- what about countries who don’t have a developed p.t system?

-what will be done with the cars?

-democracies?

-what will public officials and celebrities utilize?

-Transition period?

-cost for development of P.T?

-Pollution cause after motion implemented, through P.T? Huge fleet of development? More fuels?

Principle and prove- we as team opposition believe that banning cars is impractical and highly
flawed however we look at the more realistic side, attaining the same goals with a rational
outlook.

Other solutions, specifically less radical, drastic and realistic ones need to be employed. Without
proper execution, and mere ambiguous call for any action, without weighing out the responses
this endeavor is bound to fail miserably.
So,
the question is: Is the urgency of climate change so ridiculous, that we lose
all sense of reality? Or do we look for tangible and effective solutions that
could, in reality, work?

Banning cars that billions of people are dependent on, is not only cutting short the world’s
looming problem and not actually deal with it but also stunting the society, efficiency and growth
and development. However, we believe in actually finding a solution and an alternative living in a
society as educated as ours.

There are millions of other effective and practical alternatives, which saves the future as well as
the present. ELECTRIC CARS, we are in a world that is drastically moving towards this idea,
extremely efficient and helps attain the goal.

1. The necessity of private cars

2.
How do the cons
outweigh the pros of banning cars

ARGUM COUNTER MODAL-

Alternatives to bans could be implemented to combat the negative effects of private cars:
-toll roads could be used to
reduce demand.
-as a complete ban is next
to impossible, an idea like that of Singapore could be implemented where public
transport is highly modernized and private cars have to pay a premium to enter
the city.
- fewer licenses could be
issued to drive on public roads.
Extra focus could be given
to walking or cycling tracks in the inner city to decrease the use of cars
lowering traffic time.

ENTS:

1- RIGHT TO QUALITY OF LIFE/ CHOICE/ AUTONOMY

Driving a car is important for people in general because it provides status and the opportunity for
personal control and autonomy. In sparsely populated areas, owning a car is even more important,
since it provides the only opportunity for travelling long distances due to a lack of public transport.

no other form of transportation is as flexible as personal cars:

If we are to reduce harmful emissions, we need to make walking and cycling the most attractive
option for short journeys.
-no matter how excellent the public transportation system maybe,
there will always be a certain sect of people who cannot use it (for example
the physically disabled or the elderly, etc.)
-if private cars are banned, then a person’s daily schedule would
be planned around the public transportation system which could heavily limit
his/ her capabilities.
- in cases of emergencies, cars can be a much more flexible and
viable option as compared to public transport.
- many at times when people take on long road trips, they tend to
pass through cities to avoid extra travel hours. If private cars are banned
then the people would have to take longer and more tedious routes to reach their destination.
EG: CHINA AND MEXICO- ONE DAY NO CAR POLICY, SWEDEN- ELECTRIC CARS

-ELECTRIC CAR

“BAN”

NO CHOICE, NO FREEDOM

You’re not only hampering life autonomy but also feasibility, flexibility, efficiency, jeopardizing
mobility and utilizing an extremely large period of time. TRANSITION PERIOD will be impractical.
THE ENTIRE WORLD, SONSISTING OF BILLIONS OF CARS AND STRIPPING AWAY THIS MODE,
DEPRIVING THEM FROM ACCESSIBILITY, THIS WILL CAUSE SOCIAL STIGMA IN THE SOCIETY.

Secondly, in the long term, you cannot ban everything that poses a threat to the environment
stagnating the world but rather find an alternative, solve it from the root instead of cutting short
the problem.

Shifting towards a world running on electric cars “GREENER WORLD” along with EFFICIENCY, HUGE
AND WIDER IMPACT, AUTONOMY, FREEDOM, FEASBILITY, GLOBALLY. AS WELL AS PROMOTING
AND ALLOWING TECHONOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT TO GROW AND FOSTER.

We team opposition believe in idealism over realism.

THW ban private cars in big cities.

Name:pratyush
Speech Expected POI rebuttals
Ladies and gentlemen we see asie
proposition which by the looks of it might
have a plan which looks simple and
effective in theory, but the problem is
that side proposition has oversimplified
the debate in such a way that it suits
them rather than take a look at the many
complexities and flaws in their side of
today’s debate.
------------------rebuttals------------------
In today's debated i will be stating the
pragmatic effects if the motion on today’s
floor is passed and give a comparative
study between the two sides in today’s
debate.

1)massive unemployment :

Ladies and gentlemen, a recent study

done by the forbes in 2016 stated that if
the automobile sector was a country of
its own, it would be the sixth largest
economy in the world. To get a deeper
meaning of that lets look at the
employment figures by the automobile
industry in a few countries.
15million people are directly involved
under the automobile sector.
5 million in japan and 17 million are
directly or indirectly employed under the
automobile sector. We all know that cars
make up a huge part of the automobile
industry and banning them in big cities
would mean that the industry would take
a huge blow in terms of unemployment
figures rising. A majority of the above
mentioned people would lose their jobs.
This loss of jobs or huge unemployment
would not be restricted to the
automobile industry. Ladies and
gentlemen we must remember that an
economy works on the principles of
demand and supply. If such a huge
number of people are unemployed that
would result into a massive disruption of
the demand and supply graph. This would
then result into a domino effect meaning
that many more people from many more
sectors such as housing, banking, etc
would also be unemployed eventually
resulting into a huge case of
unemployment in the country.
2) severe strain on the government
revenue and treasury:
Just to give an idea how big the
automobile industry is for a country, let
me just state that the industry is worth
roughly around 550 billion dollars to the
American GDP. The UK Govt earns about
28 billion pounds from fuel duties and
about 40 billion pounds from road tax.
Governments from all around the world
irrespective of their level of development
would lose a huge chunk of their revenue
if these private cars are banned. This
would mean the the government would
have to put more taxes on the people
which could turn out to be catastrophic
for the fragile economics or the
developing economies of the world
especially after considering the fact that
the covid19 situation has caused and is
causing a worse effect than the greatest
depressions of the 1930s as said by the
IMF.

3) stops the advancements in the field of

transportation:
Ladies and gentlemen through youtube
the debate we heard side proposition talk
about the environment. But here is the
catch right, we are already way past the
time for mitigation. If we follow the paris
agreement without making any
compromises, by 2100 we would only be
able to lower the average rise in
temperature by 0.6C. That is why we
need to look towards using cleaner and
more efficient ways of transportation.
Which is why the need for electric cars or
cleaner fuels is arising. But when we hear
team proposition propose a blanket ban
on the usage of private cars, what they
are forgetting is that they are in turn
stopping the research and development
in the fields mentioned above as there is
no directive incentive to invest money
into researching for a cleaner fuel or a
cleaner car as now a huge part of the
market has been banned from using
these cars. Therefore the chances of
actual development taking place in this
field would be next to zero. With no
guarantee that the temperatures would
drop drastically to ideal levels and one of
the ways to make sure that the world
would become a more breathable place
in the long term has been taken away
due to the ban, the goal that team
proposition wants to achieve in the long
term gets much harder to achieve.
We must keep in mind that even though
the electric cars might seem more
expensive than the normal cars which run
on petrol or diesel,we have to keep in
mind the increasing popularity of them as
they are not only much cleaner, the
maintenance cost of them is also lesser in
comparison than the other cars. The USA
department of automobile and
transportation showed in its reports that
the average increase in sales in electric
cars increased from 26% in 2017 to 80.7%
in 2018. Growth like this has been seen in
many other countries as well. For
example the sales in china increased by
about 85% in the year 2017. The USA
department of automobiles and
transportation has also stated that with
the steady development in the field of
electric cars, electric cars are predicted to
be of equal price as that of normal cars
by the year 2025. All of this development
would be compromised by a blanket ban
on the use of private cars in big cities.

Comparative study:
Ladies and gentlemen let's take a look
into what would happen to the word
because of the proposals that the two
sides are making.
On one side we see side proposition
proposing to combat climate change by
banning private cars in big cities and by
using the transport system which is
already very burdened in many of the
countries without thinking about the
massive side effects of what would
happen if this motion would pass. On the
other hand we see side opposition which
wants to make this world a cleaner world
without compromising the present or the
future generation. We would see that if
the motion on the floor passes then the
world would witness a massive rise in the
numbers of unemployment while at the
same time reduce huge chunks of the
government revenue resulting into a
huge strain on the country’s economy.
Whereas on side opposition we can make
sure that these people would not lose
their livelihood. On the proposition's side
we see a side which wants to make this
world a greener place but takes away the
opportunity to develop methods to
combat climate change. Whereas if this
motion fais, we will be able to see more
advanced developments in the field of
transportation and communication.
We see that if the motion is passed the
people lose their freedom of choice and
their flexibility in the way of travel.

Ladies and gentlemen, side proposition

had to provide an exclusive benefit in this
debate in order for the motion to be
passed but we see a side which is not
able to guarantee that and at the same
time give out these huge side effects
which will turn out to be exponentially
harmful in today’s world.

Speaker 3:
Will this cause unemployment?

one of the major issues the world is facing right now is unemployment.
proposition just cannot say that one needs to go on banning and major industry
just because it causes a so-called harm to the environment .There are several
other methods in which this environmental destruction can be saved but
banning is not an answer. What happens when one bans this industry? Cars and
trucks manufacturing is one of the leading industries in the world. When one is
banning private vehicles one destroys the industry. When these people are
unemployed the country faces major issues because the unemployment rate on
employment is not a joke and it should be taken seriously when one says that
one needs to ban a thing one can one cannot just not think about any of those
people working in the industry. There are millions of people working in that
same industry of the private vehicles.Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by
2.5 million in May, and the unemployment rate declined to 13.3 percent, the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Why would one like to increase this?
Please early age when one process this band when one unlocks the span to take
this in several countries will one not just focusing on environmental issues and
not helping it but just giving an ethical Advisors we believe that we should not be
doing this isn't easy sentence on employment will increase day by day when the
small industries shuts down the market that rely on it the market that are the
only source of private vehicle as the income will all fall down this have a major
impact on most of the countries not just the developing countries but that
developed countries as well and make changes status to really poor country this
will happen only if one follows this norm that is my side to position should not
follow allowed.

How will the ban help reduce pollution more than electric cars?

Research has shown that electric cars are better for the environment. They
emit less greenhouse gases and air pollutants over their life than a petrol or
diesel car. This is even after the production of the vehicle and the generation of
the electricity required to fuel them is considered. Side preposition just cannot
come to us and give it the need to go on banning everything that you feel comes
in the way of environmental issues that are several other substitutes given by
side opposition. We do not say that we should ignore the environmental
problems but believe that we should not go on unethically banning everything
that comes in the way of the environmental destruction. opposition clearly
understands that there is a need for a solution for this problem and that's why
we have continuously been giving you the choice of electric cars. Electric cars
are considered better than normal cars .When you use electric cars like many
countries have already done, what happens is that people also get the freedom
of choice to use public transport like they want to and they get to save the
environment as well. More than one million light-duty passenger plug-ins had
been registered in Europe through June 2018, with Norway as the leading
country with over 384,000 units registered by the end of 2019. Research is true
then Norway has pretty much less amount of air pollution than the other
country this is because they don't go unethically banning the cars but have a
wise solution and the solution is electric car.The major causes of pollution are:

● Industry.
● Household and Farming Chemicals
 ● Deforestation.
● Smoking
● Vehicle Emissions..
We see that vehicle emissions are the last one to cause pollution about
industry, farming, deforestation and smoking are the four major reasons.
Unlike the preposition side, the opposition believes that we should be
tackling issues in a normal way where not much destruction is caused.

Will this help in emergency or tough situations?

Ladies and roughly running all the private vehicles in cities is not a valid point at
all when you understand what actually will happen during lies that two major
issues including unemployment and second hand how it will not help the
environment come into the picture that work is that during difficult times
during times of pandemic builders come to use there is environment we all
know that during difficult times we all example coronavirus we all are advised to
stay away from one another and to maintain social distancing. When a person is
helping you through the public transport you share the same vehicle and share
the same air as this will not help save nature what will help. during difficult times
for example a medical emergency one would not prefer to take public transport
such as metro or the train or any other public transport when a person is dead
what one would prefer is obviously using cause of using private vehicles
because this will be much effective. We all know that this is not an ultimate
solution because this will harm the people. On the longer on the understand
that these Technologies will take time to improve until the time the people will
say unemployment that it does not help at all because it causes a lot of
destruction

THBT governments should remove controversial historical monuments

Proposition speaker 1

This debate exists as these statues come off as offensive to many vulnerable communities and
minorities (especially black people). These statues glorify and celebrate slavery, they glorify and
celebrate the worst parts of history. These statues represent an affront to humanity, they honor
slavery. We should not be honoring people who benefited from slavery,

Commemorate- To show respect to something, honor something or to celebrate it.

Side Proposition must convince the jury that these statues signify a dark past of the minorities
and offend them. They celebrate and honor the worst parts of human history. Having a statue of
someone who treated humans like objects, is complete stupidity. Removing these statues will
help to make many people feel more comfortable in places which has suffered slave trade
before.

Valuing the vulnerable communities.

Respecting their freedom from slavery.

We would only remove statues that have brought harm to society or the ones that glorify slave
traders. We will place these statues in museums later on so that the people can learn about
black people's human rights struggle.

1. These statues convey the wrong message and celebrates slavery.

➔ -slavery is a morally wrong concept, and took years to abolish. It is unacceptable to
celebrate it. Statues respecting people like Edward Colston and Robert Milligan are
offensive to the people.
➔ Having a statue and honoring people who benefited from slave trade, from denying
people human rights, is extrealy wrong, These atues should be removed and should be
dishonored. They celebrate and glorify the worst of history, and people, you can’t have a
slaver in a statue in the 21 century.
➔ -Black Lives Matters protesters in Bristol have pulled down a statue of the slave trader
Edward Colston. Demonstrators attached a rope to the statue on Colston Avenue before
pulling it to the ground. They then rolled it down the street before pushing it into Bristol
Harbour.

Ethics and Impact: We shouldn't honour such people with horrific ideals, benefiting themselves
from the suffering of others. These statues have never had a positive impact on anyone. It goes
against the morals of humanity.

Evidences :

Protesters tried tearing down a statue of Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United
States, in a park near the White House, scrawling “killer scum” on its pedestal and pulling on the
monument with ropes before police intervened.

The Taliban's destruction of Buddha statues in Afghanistan, demolition of Saddam Hussein

statues in Iraq after the US invasion, and destruction of Lenin and Stalin statues after the fall of
the communist regime.

As cities and organizations across the country continue to take down monuments,
memorials and other symbols of hate, one controversial historical figure has come
back into the spotlight: Christopher Columbus.

While the debate over the controversial European explorer reignited, some of his
opponents have already taken bold action to his memorials.

On Tuesday night, a Columbus statue in Richmond, Virginia, was torn down by

protesters, set on fire and then submerged into a lake, police said. Overnight Tuesday,
another Columbus statue in Boston was decapitated, according to Boston police.

Speaker 3
Humanity vs. History

ladies and gentlemen we decide to visit and believe that one does not make
cover statues on one does not make a youth monument just to prove that it is
not good we see that these monuments this controversial historical statues they
have a large impact on the people why firstly we understand that people look at
them and say that if that person did something wrong if that person has got so
much time to the society and still gets to be addressed to stand on the stone and
gets the popularity even though he does not wrong in hurting people.In Norway,
historical monuments representing a shadowy use of the past, such as Nazi
monuments raised in honour of Norse heroes, have been destroyed to conceal
or wipe out this difficult past. Several of the monuments raised during the war
by the Nasjonal Samling (NS) were destroyed FOR A REASON. These peoples
who are angry see that the people who have caused harm to the people are
themselves being portrayed as good or being portrayed for that matter .The
people got angry and caused violence in the environment. We understand that
the opposition does not have a problem with violence. violence is one of the
major issues in the world and they feel that just buy a plot showing what the real
history was we can allow violence to take place in the society protest to go on
and let people get hard as it has been continued in the past.Protests to bring
down the monument of Andrew Jackson in DC. Again we understand that
people did not agree with Andrew Jackson's method or ideology in the past and
that's why they got triggered by seeing that they still had the monument of
Andrew Jackson and that's why they want it dance again this was active while
this was a big protest which was there in the whole Nations and still does a
position think that just to show that just this was the true history and this is
truth even though it is bad and hurts the people we will glorify it. What are the
physician doesn't understand that violence caused by this the the people getting
triggered by this is a major issue in the world they say the people to understand
the true history on people to get angry but do they understand that these angry
people don't just stay angry but also take action that can hurt several people
why designer position does not understand the clear that angry people don't just
a Angry Bird also attack or protest which can hurt people instead of just allowing
people to glorify the sad part of history we will it and we should eradicate the
true roots of this and the stop these people or stop these angry protest in the
world and make peace and harmony. Glorifying or simply for trying this people
have negative impact on the children or on the new generation they understand
that the people was cause harm to the society can be glorified as well so as the
Statues Of the monuments of proven we need to understand that to make a
better society to make a society that is less violent we need to eradicate the root
of the problem itself asking for speaker already said we need to understand what
causes this reason and opposition continuous to sas that then how will you learn
history. There are numerous other ways to learn the state in which one person is
not glorified for suppressing others for using other power in the wrong way.
How would a black person feel if the person other person who always treated
them an equally be glorified it is always anguish feelings toward the statute or
towards the people who built or who allowed the monuments to take place
that's why we believe that it society needs to be less violent we need to stop
glorified or simply putting the statues and making people think that doing Evil
can allow you to be glorified for the alarm the people to make used to make huge
monuments just in your favour.

Morality vs. Ethics

If you look in terms of ethics we understand that people just do not see it as the thing
they did wrong but see that these people are being verified these people have statues or
monuments made for themselves even more than did the wrong things for example
Philadelphia announces plans to remove Columbus statue after repeated
violence at Marconi Plaza. Why did this happen? This happened because the
black people were angry at a person who made the black people slaves of the
white the people got angry because Columbus was glorified was portrait even
after doing the Wars of the things that were the people got angry causing this
protect these protests left the government with no choice but to announce the
plans to remove the Columbus statue. On the moral basis on the ground we
understand that nobody should be glorified; nobody should be portrayed as the
good who has caused harm to the people one wouldn't like to make a copper
iron or even gold statue of a person who has always treated them in the most
horrible or brutal way. Another example comes as Black Lives Matters
protesters in Bristol have pulled down a statue of the slave trader Edward
Colston. Demonstrators attached a rope to the statue on Colston Avenue before
pulling it to the ground. They then rolled it down the street before pushing it
into Bristol Harbour. Again this is violence all my speakers have been talking
about just pulling a huge statue rolling them on the ground and threatening that
they will be fired in several streets by allowing these statutes to stand again
cause a lot of things in the society one does not just get what the fake points the
other side is trying to prove. All my speakers give you numerous examples that
show that people were angry because these statues still stood for example
nobody would like to have a statue or a monument of Hitler right? Hitler killed
Jews millions and millions of them. Now if the government announces class to
make up a statue of monument in the name of the Hitler people will again get
angry when we need to understand the real perspective of the people we need
to see what the people think after seeing the statues on monuments we need to
understand what makes them angry what makes them so pissed at it and causes
violence another example to be given will be the George Floyd.protest no one I
repeat no one will like to make a statue or a monument of the police who killed
George Floyd. Even if we make this monument people are going to go crazy
about it. People are going to cause a lot of violence in the society which
obviously would and could endanger the lives of many people. Therefore if the
jewelry pieces that the world should be happy play should be a peaceful place
where we do not put the sad part about History but the part where you can
learn something positive then the jury should side with the proposition.

This house would prohibit Presidents/Heads of States from

having personal social media accounts.
Opposition
1st speaker
In today’s status quo the society needs to achieve transparency, combat misinformation and
prohibit miscommunication.

Principle/ what we need to prove? -World leaders need to reach out to their people - deliver
necessary information and develop close relationships with the people they serve.

We see that the core root of democracy or any country is its people, their relationship with the
government, accountability and communication. We as team opposition believe in eradicating the
core root issues that have bloomed in today’s society. We want to create a strengthen society, its
decisions, create awareness as a result working towards a more rational and efficiently functioning
society/country.

We do not believe in depriving a leader to propagate and convey messages/opinions to the people
they serve and the country

1-FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

Freedom of speech and expression is broadly understood as the notion that every person has the
natural right to freely express themselves through any media and frontier without outside
interference, such as censorship, and without fear of reprisal, such as threats and persecutions.

Freedom of expression is a complex right. This is because freedom of expression is not absolute
and carries with it special duties and responsibilities therefore it may be subject to certain
restrictions provided by law and we as team opposition believe that as any other citizen a leader
who is elected by the country’s people, does claim the right to speak out, deliver messages and
voice their opinions to its people and the world.

Freedom of speech is one of the core rights possessed by an individual by birth. Every eligible
individual is worthy of a voice in society, to be able to voice their opinions, deliver a message or
divert public’s attention to important issues.

The Internet and Social Media has become a vital communications tool through which individuals
can exercise their right of freedom of expression and exchange information and ideas. In the past
year or so, a growing movement of people around the world has been witnessed who are
advocating for change, justice, equality, accountability of the powerful and respect for human
rights. In such movements, the Internet and Social Media has often played a key role by enabling
people to connect and exchange information instantly and by creating a sense of solidarity.

Restricting this right that is and should be applicable to every citizen and individual regardless of
their status, depriving this freedom, and regulating the voice of a country’s leader is extremely
detrimental. Not only is this depriving the country the voice of its sole leader, its opinions and
thoughts which creates a wall, it fails to possibly expose a side that is not all respectful and wise, if
their leader fails to uphold morale, it fails to establish a transparent relationship between the two,
an unclear picture of its leader. (Further elaborated by 2nd speaker)

How has news media failed its obligation?

A media is required to propagate and transfer reliable information, as it is the window to the
world, however in the current status quo we see that this goal is not achieved, but rather news
media corporates are highly driven by the incentives of self interest and viewership and business.
Ladies and gentlemen this has majorly led to misinformation and a highly biased platform, which is
against the principles of a media platform. They often paint a picture or portray the government
falsely, this has highly led to the loss of transparency between the media, its viewers and society
as a whole. Media therefore has lost its meaning and is highly conceptualized as an unreliable
source, failing its obligation.

How is social media the right platform?

Social media is an extensively wide platform with a diverse audience of cultures, societies, ages
and globally. It establishes an extremely convenient relationship amongst its users and the world
as a whole. It has a huge impact and influence over the world socially, politically and economically.
Right to information

When a politician makes avail of this platform eg. Twitter, to voice their opinions, thoughts and
concerns on ongoing issues globally, we see more transparency and an accountable relationship is
established between its people. DIRECT COMMUNICATION. This spreads awareness as a whole
about their leader amongst the people, realize what their leaders stand for, if they are fit for
leadership, their stance on political and global issues, Expose the leader, divert attention towards
important issues. 2nd speaker will be elaborating on.

-Why government transparency is important?

Accountability and transparency are treated as major building pillars for governing democratic
nations in recent years.

Accountability signifies the concern and duty of government institutional workers to perform their
activities in the best interests of the public and that institutional officials should take responsibility
for their activities performed.

Transparency is a situation in which government institutional activities and other supporting

organizational activities are performed in open way without any secrets held behind, so that the
public can believe and trust that these organizations are honest and fair. In other words, it’s a
concept of eradicating all barriers and enabling information access to public and facilitate
procedures, rules and regulations that protects those citizens, and this reflects on the
development of the nation.

Democracy needs accountability and transparency.

-Medias obligation

-Transparency

-spread of awareness- wider impact, expose its leader, accountability, rational decisions,
FORMULATE OPINIONS

THW prohibit presidents/heads of states from having personal social media accounts.

name:pratyush
Speech Expected POI rebuttals
Ladies and gentlemen we hear a side
opposition talk about the greater good
and how this ban or prohibition on the
president's from using personal social
media accounts might seem great from
the outside it has many flaws which side
proposition knowingly or unknowingly
ignored.
In my speech today I will be giving the
effects of this prohibition in the current
world we live in, give a comparative study
between what would happen if this
motion passes or fails. But first, I will be
rebutting the vague one liners presented
by team proposition.
--------------rebuttals---------------

And now coming to my effects:

1) Helps in exposing the reality or
the true colour of these
politicians.
Ladies and gentlemen throughout today’s
debate we saw the example of donald
trump coming up time and time again in
today’s debate.
Here is the thing right, in 2016, barely any
of us knew the reality of this man. Most
of the US citizens who voted fir him voted
without knowing the actual truth about
the man. But over the years due to his
insanely crazy tweets on twitter we in
today’s world have recognized the true
colours of this man. Now in the upcoming
elections the chances of this man getting
reelected as the USA’s president is
drastically lesser than the odds of him
becoming the president back in 2016.
This ladies and gentlemen has happened
because the US citizens now have a
better understanding as to what this man
wants or thinks. A major part of this is
because of his social media. So actually
banning presidents from using social
media account just because they might
write or say something which is not that
appropriate might seem like a great idea
but what we forget is that because of
these social media accounts we actually
get to know them better, meaning that
we can make a much more informed
decision the next time we elect our
leaders.

2)helps them connect with the public:

Out of the 7 plus billion people living on
this planet about 50% of them are aged
from the age of 15 to 40 years old most
of these people receive their news from
their social media accounts such as
instagram facebook, twitter etc. with the
elp of social media the leaders can
connect with this population much more
efficiently and more more effectively.

3) helps them convey their own views

and ideas to the public just as they think:
In today’s world we see a media which
will twist the fact, pick out a statement
out of a speech and display it without
showing what was said either before or
after that statement just to increase
their own TRP. it is very important for the
leaders to be able to express their views
on the topic concerned without their
views getting distorted by the media.
Social media provides the perfect
platform for such an issue or a problem.
The leaders can express their first hand
views to the public by just posting a text
or video by themselves on social media
accounts without being in the fear of
what the media might say.

4) could come useful in helping people

stuck in difficult situations:
Social media accounts of leaders could
also be used to help the common people
out of difficult situations due to the wide
reach of the leaders. One such famous
example is of the famous ex fioreign
minister of india, sushma swaraj whose
twitter account helped hundreds of
indians stuck in foreign countries, for
example the time When she rescued 168
Indians trapped in Iraq by acting on a
video that was tweeted to her.
Such unique and ingenious ways of using
social media by the leaders could come of
great use to the citizens of their
respective countries.
Comparative study:
Ladies and gentlemen lets take a deeper
look into what the two sides in today;’s
 debate have to offer, lets look at what
would happen if the motion on today’s
floor gets passed.
One side we have a team proposition
proposing to strip the leaders of our
country of their personal choice or their
freedom by banning them from using
social media accounts. While on our side
of the debate we make sure that they
have their freedom of choice.
While team proposition decides to
prohibit them from usi g socia media
accounts due to a few politicians, we
decide to use that for the betterment of
the public and expose such politicians
while at the same time make sure that
those politicians who actually want to do
good get the public to express their views
with more accuracy, wider reach and
more effectively.

This house would ban all medical procedures or cosmetic

products intended to change an individual's racial
appearance.
Opposition

1st speaker

Products and procedures include- tanning, bronzers, contours, foundations, and medical
procedures to change color

WE ARE NO WHERE SUPPORTING RACIAL DISCRIMINATION OR DEGRADING SELF ACCEPTANCE,

however if this is how someone feels accepted, if this is how they feel happy, if this is what helps
them feel beautiful then we believe that they deserve it and that they have complete freedom to
make avail of any product or to pursue medical procedures and team proposition has no rights
whatsoever to put a stop to that.

We do not want to promote a judgmental society where everyone is solely interested in your
appearance and what you might do to modify it, by attacking it and this decision and this freedom.
Shouldn’t receive any pressure to dress a certain way or to live up to a certain social appearance
We believe that every individual has complete freedom to make a decision about their body
something that they complete rights over and have complete autonomy of. How people do their
makeup or treat their skin is their personal decision, and it needs to be respected. If people decide
to alter their skin color then they cannot be blamed for being affected and for feeling vulnerable
by societies criticism and judgement towards diff communities and color. This is not the cause of
racial discrimination etc. but rather the result of it. In order to eradicate such stigma, societal
norms and mentality needs to be altered and awareness needs to be spread.

- Explain why black to white skin color medical procedures are pursued in the first place?

Both sides are making sure that racial discrimination stops in the long run, but we on side
opposition actually make sure that safety and mental security is not compromised.

SOCIETY, HISTORY AND MEDIA FOR SEVERAL CENTURIES HAVE CREATED A SOCIAL STIGMA,
CONCEPTUALIZED STEREOTYPE, MOLDED THOUGHTS AGAINST COMMUNITIES, BELITTLED THEM
AND PROMOTED OUTER APPEARANCE ETC

THIS LED TO SOCIAL STIGMA

RESULTED IN SOCIETY PROPAGATING CRTICISM, JUDGEMENTS AGAINST COLORED COMMUNITIES.

CAUSED TO DEVELOP FEELINGS OF ANXIETY, VULNERABILITY, DEPRESSION, MENTAL TORYURE,

DEGRADES THEIR MENTAL HEALTH.

CONSTANTLY STEREOTYPED, RACIALLY DISCRIMINATED AND EXPOSED TO THE JUDGEMENT,

CRITICISM AND THOUGHTS OF THE SOCIETY THEY EXPERIENCE MENTAL TRAUMA AND FAIL TO
ACCEPT THEMSELVES. VICTIMIZED, ETC.

AS A RESULT – MEDICAL PROCEDURES ARE PURSUED AS A “COPING MECHANISM”, COERCED IN A

WAY.

COPE WITH THE RESULT OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, THE ROOT CAUSE “SOCIAL STIGMA”, WHICH
IS WHAT IS NEEDED TO BE DEALT WITH.

-Therefore, such medical procedures aren’t the cause of racial discrimination but rather the effect
of it or the result of it and banning is not actually dealing with the problem, it won’t make the
global situation better but rather worse. We believe that this is issue will be dealt with
consequently if such communities are accepted, if racial discrimination is reduced, if societal
judgments are decreased.

-The actual problem here is promotion of racial stereotypes, discrimination, criticism, perspective
towards vulnerable communities. SIMPLY BANNING SUCH PROCEDURES IN NO WAY CHANGES THE
MENTALITY OF THE SOCIETY BUT RATHER JUST EXPOSES VULNERABLE, SENSITIVE TO THE
SOCIETAL JUDGEMENT, LEAVING THEM WITHOUT A COPING MECHANISM.

-FREEDOM OF CHOICE

“BANNING”

Many individuals face pressure to live up to a certain standard of beauty, a certain standard of
color or an appearance. If this person is in distress, if they find happiness in a certain product, then
we believe that nothing should stand in the way of that except the person itself.
Every decision is affected by constraints however at the end of the day it is that person’s choice
the way they decide to treat their skin and their body.

Freedom of choice is a birth right that cannot be stripped away from a citizen IT IS UNETHICAL
AND IMMORAL. They society cannot decide what decisions an individual should carry out. In order
to change their racial appearance, they are aware of the consequences and therefore this needs to
be respected.

We see a cycle of social stigma- where the society develops stereotypes and a standard of racial
appearance, when people vulnerable and sensitive to these thoughts are affected mentally and
experience distress try to cope with this is social stigma, alter their appearance to fit in the societal
norms that THE SOCIETY ITSELF HAS CREATED, they are criticized by the society.

This Is something that needs to be understood that every individual possesses an autonomy over
their body, every decision they uptake can be influenced but cannot be decided by the society or
by team proposition. This is a decision that lies within their hands and should be respected

Instead of cutting short the problems, to actually deal with the issue of racial discrimination we
need to look at the roots of the issue, the cause the core mentality propagated and promoted by
several in the society, and not by banning its result, its effect and resulting in millions left
vulnerable to cope with unchanged stereotyped mentality of the society

TEAM EMERALD
22nd June
Motion: THW prohibit Presidents/Heads of States from having personal social media
accounts.

Speaker 1
Opening:
The beginning of any social movement against social discrimination is always based on the
lack of equal opportunities for groups to achieve the same basic freedoms in life.In the status
quo, it is quite easy to see that the traditional media quite openly give more coverage to
men’s sports rather than womens sport. If the jury believes in levelling the playing field,
reserving equality for men and women in the field of sports, then the jury should side with
team Proposition.

Good evening ladies and gentlemen. The motion on the floor today is THBT media
coverage of women's sports should get as much time and attention as men’s sports.
Definitions:

Media Coverage: The term media coverage is used to refer to all video content or other
types of digital content produced by individuals or organisations, specifically traditional
media.
Side prop doesnt hold the burden to prove how this is implemented, so we request opp to
refrain from asking us how we choose to go about doing this.

What we will be proving in this debate/ Signposting:

1. First Speaker : Why morally speaking, media has an inherent obligation to cover
women equally as much as men
2. Second Speaker: Why the motion passing yields better outcomes for all stakeholders,
ie. and hence makes it imperative pragmatically
i) The female sportspersons
ii)The media
iii)The viewership
3. Third Speaker: Meeting points
Summary

Arguments:

1. Moral Obligation of the media to cover both sports equally:

a) Principle Reasoning :We know side opposition is going to speak about how the
capitalist viewership has determined the medias actions, and there is no wrong in that
occurrence. By this argument, u can blame slavery on people choosing to believe
black people are inferiorm that sexism is a result of their inability of women to lift
weights like men. By that definition, any social movement should be boycotted,
because the lack of opportunities for the discriminated mandate that choice of
opportunity
We on prop say that if women get the same opportunities to enter sports, and they still
recieve less attention from people, then yes, we concede to opp but hindering of
choices by parents, pregnancy, the late entry of women's sports into media, etc. all
affect their choices,
The whole point of capitalism is that given equal opportunities, we agree with any
consequence. But the premise theres isnt true, and hence, media has the obligation to
right that wrong.
People haven’t gotten an equal opportunity to form their own preferences of men’s or
women's sports. Gender Inequality is a very old and long problem. As men’s sports
have been around for way longer than women’s sports, people got used to watching
men’s sports. When the media decides which part of the sports sector they’re going to
 cover, they check which sector has gotten higher ratings. And mostly, that sector is
men’s sports. Thus women’s sports get much lesser coverage than men.
Now for opposition to win in the debate, they have to prove that women and men
have had equal opportunities to influence the viewership. Only then can they say that
the viewers fairly prefer mens sports over women's sports, and hence biased media
coverage is simply a consequence of the capitalist role the media plays. In such a
reality, we agree with opposition, but that simply isn't true.
It has been 30 years since Title IX legislation granted women equal playing time, but
the male-dominated world of sports journalism has yet to catch up with the law.
Coverage of women's sports lags far behind men's and focuses on female athletes'
femininity and sexuality over their achievements on the court and field. While female
athleticism challenges gender norms, women athletes continue to be depicted in
traditional roles that reaffirm their femininity - as wives and mothers or sex objects.
By comparison, male
athletes are framed according to heroic masculine ideals that honor courage, strength,
and endurance.

Women account for a large percentage of the sporting world, but it is disheartening
and
discouraging to thousands of female athletes that they account for only a mere
fraction of its media coverage

b) Pragmatic Injustice: Women account for a large percentage of the sporting world,
but it is disheartening and discouraging to thousands of female athletes that they
account for only a mere fraction of its media coverage(Gender Inequa: Inequality
between genders in every field has been taking place for centuries. Yet somehow
women are given a weaker advantage than the men for both income and fame.
Women make up 40% of all participants in sports—yet somehow they receive only
4% of sports media coverage. With men over 96.23% of media coverage, it's not just
that they receive huge profit and income and sponsors, but the whole view of the
society changes.
Women drop out of sports at twice the rate of men, according to the Women’s Sports
Foundation, but not for lack of passion or skill, but because women’s and girl’s sports
programs are underfunded and often under promoted.
But when promotion of women sports is equal to that of the men, then the view of the
society changes which influences other people and hence women would be treated
equally like the men in the field of sports.
We also find that 90 percent of sports television hours have been devoted to men’s
sports, whereby women’s sports are viewed as less significant for media coverage.
Much of the overall disparity may also be due to the little airtime devoted to each
individual woman’s story on SportsCenter: Women’s stories averaged 77 seconds,
 nearly 50 percent shorter than men’s stories, though still better than the 44 seconds
given to women’s stories on local affiliates.
Sports can provide so many valuable lessons to young athletes, female and male alike.
They teach the lifelong lessons of teamwork and being able to work cooperatively
with others, discipline, and time management, among so many other positive effects.
Sports, for many athletes, also serve as a source of pure happiness, a place of
relaxation and an escape from the rigors of everyday life and reality, which can be
grim. To ensure this is
what young athletes, especially females, are getting out of sports instead of the
negative pressures and effects, research and advocates must continue to advance the
position and reputation of women in sports, to shift the focus from their sexuality to
their raw talent and sporting prowess, and to change gender equality in sports from a
dream to reality, and the first step to achieving that is making sure, we level the
playing field

Conclusion:

What have proved to you in todays debate:

i)Women have been historically discriminated against in the field of sports.
ii)Media has an inherent obligation to correct the indirect harm it has done to the women field
of sports

Saying so, we urge the jury to vote proposition.

Speaker 2
Victoria Honoridez
(2nd speaker.)
THBT media coverage of women’s sports should get as much time and attention as
men’s sports.

speech: POI: refutation:

The opposing side cannot deny or disagree to the Participation from Reports and case
fact that the media does have very less coverage for women goes studies prove that
women’s sports. down because of one of the leading
personal issues causes as to why
In order to win this debate, the side proposition and maternity women drop out is
needs to prove why women need better coverage leaves. because of the
than they already receive. lack of
appreciation that
The burden that side opposition needs to clear in they receive.
order to win this debate is to tell us that men and
women were given an equal chance and
representation from the start.
 1. Ethics and impact of the debate.
2. The role and obligation of the media.
Before sports started to air, men’s sports were
already very popular, dominating the center stage.
Women don't have enough showtime or Women get less
representation in the sports world and their coverage coverage False. Women get
automatically goes down. because people less coverage at
Even way back, decades ago, the males/men’s are interested in present day
sports were preferred over women's sports, in this men’s sports. because of the
certain way, they’ve indirectly taken the women’s Preference. unequal
opportunities for equal representation. representation.
People were
It simply isn't fair to put one party into a position limited to mainly
where they aren't able to showcase themselves, men’s sports.
hence, when the motion passes in our favour, women (more detail in the
finally get to access the benefits of being in the speech)
limelight.

The opposing cannot reason out that women don't

get enough screen time because people prefer
watching men play sports. This statement is
completely false.
Before people get the choice or to choose what they
want to watch, it is only rational and fair that women
be given the same standpoint as the men do.
It's not that people just want to watch men’s sports.
It's just how the information is handed to them.
People’s choices were limited to a wider variety of
men’s sports since the women were labelled as a
minority in the eyes of media and sports.

Media has the ability to shape society's perception of

the sports that air. Media has the ability to create or
prevent interest in women’s sports. Excluding
women’s sports from the media makes it much less
likely for even a chance to choose women’s sports.

If the motion falls, the status quo just fosters things

that dont follow moral principles, we see
discrimination based on gender or gender inequality.

Noting that women are the minority, if the motion

falls, they will experience a much more extreme
effect or impact of the debate than men will. The
reason as to why this group of the society is so
important is because they do as much as men do
and the problem or the cause of the deterioration of
their careers and passions is because of the lack of
appreciation and recognition they receive from the
public.

We smoothly win the greater hand as when our

motion passes, not only the women get benefitted,
but society as a whole receives benefits.
 Comparative study:
If the motion stands, we see that women are given
equal opportunity and have the same benefits as the
men. They’re proportional pay, exposure and
sponsorships.
The viewers get better quality content as the variety
of entertainment widens as women’s participation
also increases, the media is benefited because more
people start to watch and the viewership goes up due
to the quality of the content, and the women that play
sports wouldn’t be disregarded or neglected in the
world of sports.

If the motion passes on the opposing side’s favour,

pedestals of superiority between the men and women
will grow at an alarming rate and women will get
neglected until the point where their representation in
media is close to none, participation from women will
decrease.

-------------------------------------------------
Reply clashes
Do women’s sports really deserve equal attention?
Which side benefits the stake holder?

Speaker 3

Tianna Samal
Third Speaker
THBT media coverage of women’s sports should get as much time and attention as men’s
sports

CLASHES
The effects of media coverage on
- The athletes themselves
Media coverage doesn’t boil down to only
recognition, the athletes being known among but
the public but also has a direct monetary benefit
 as media coverage directly leads to sponsorships,
which often bring in 4x as much money as
championship wins. So Opp isn’t just denying
these athletes recognition but also now directly
harming them by affecting the money they earn.
And we see how this can’t be justified by how
people just “don't want to watch female athletes”
since viewership of female championships are on
a rise (2018 adams and tuggle survey across 8
major global sports markets showed that 84% of
fans were actually interested in watching female
athlete’s games) and how, already proven by my
speakers, since from the first emergence of
female sports leagues, they were never given the
same treatment as the men’s games since those
already dominated the field. The men’s and
female’s games were never on the same playing
field and still aren’t and this motion is fixing that
unfair status quo.
They talk about how women athletes shouldn’t be
given media coverage since they’re sexualized for
the sport gear they wear, citing beach volleyball
and tennis players, but we don’t see how it’s the
players that should be pushed to the side because
the televisors are being creepy and disrespectful.
We’ve already proven how media coverage
directly relates to how much money they end up
earning in the long run, so we can’t see any
morally right way that team Prop can back this
argument up without supporting this predatory
behaviour of televisors and choosing to rather
have the athletes responsible.

- Society as an whole
We’ve all know how much representation in media
matters and this motion is just pushing forward
more diversity in the sports arena, how young
boys have their role models in any and every sport
they seem to like whereas young girls don’t see
anyone like them being the same, strong
established athletes as to their male counterparts.
Team opp tries justifying the little to no coverage
female athletes get but at the same time deny it,
saying that games seen as feminine (like ice
skating and gymnastics) do get plenty of female
athlete coverage whilst the men in this situation
are the victims but we see how this is a problem,
that even in sport coverage, gender roles and
expectations are still being pushed onto the
athletes, where the only time women in sport are
discussed are the sports where elegance and
poise play big factors and only then are
considered as commendable athletes but not in
sports that rely on “masculine” characteristics (like
 football or basketball) of power, speed, strength,
how this has a ripple effect on the young girls that
do play and follow such sports, that their passion
for the sport isn’t “ladylike” and isn’t fitting for girls.
And we can see this manifest in the school sports
scene where over 57% of girls drop their sports
clubs and opt for other activities to fit in better.
So we see in this debate, that team proposition is
giving women athletes the equal stage that they've
been denied since the beginning and how an
equal stage would just help better society by
shedding light on the various dimensions of
women being more than their assumed gender
roles.

23rd June
Motion:This house would ban private cars in big cities, and we on side opposition,
strongly oppose the motion

Speaker 1

Opening:

Imagine a world where the government cripples the fossil fuel industry, where the
government cripples the automobile industry, where 1.2 billion people dont have the means
to travel to their schools, their offices, and their relatives. This is the world that side
proposition so wilfully proposes to solve all our problems. On that basis alone, we already
have the upper hand in todays debate.

Good Evening, Ladies and gentlemen the motion on the floor today is This house would ban
private cars in big cities, and we on side opposition, strongly oppose the motion

Refutations:

1) The motion helps mitigate the climate crisis, and it is the best way to start the
anti-climate agenda.
Response:
i) Its not enough for proposition to say that its ok to simply take all the people’s cars
away, they have to say why its legitimate to go after the individuals, the citizens and
make them suffer instead of tackling the problem and going after electricity
consumption, the fossil fuel industries, etc. They have to prove, in essence why its
necessarily justified to make the people suffer, when the government has so many
other alternatives for solving the problem. These cars compose a very small portion of
the Greenhouse Gas emissions, and developments in the field are already switching
them over to renewable fuels to conserve fuels. On the other hand, 1.2 billion people
depend upon these private cars to go to work. Just because something causes a minute
benefit, isnt a reason for the government to do it. Why dont we stop all transportation
then? That would help the Climate exponentially. The answer is simple. We have to
analyze who we are holding accountable, and how much we are harming them while
trying to solve the crisis.

ii) Lets take side prop on their best case scenario and assume that it is legitimate for
them to make these people suffer. Even then, they have to prove how their method
even scratches the surface of the climate crisis. Lets analyze.The International Energy
Agency predicts the Covid-19 economic recession will reduce greenhouse gas
emissions this year by 8 per cent. If this decline were maintained for the rest of the
century, a climate model funded by the US Environmental Protection Agency predicts
that the temperature reduction in 2100 would be a bit more than 0.1C. Using the same
model, future temperature effects of much larger reductions in greenhouse emissions
are of a level that I consider trivial. The 2015 Paris agreement, which can easily be
evaded by participating countries: 0.17C by 2100. Zero greenhouse gas emissions by
the entire OECD: 0.3C. A 30 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by the entire
world: 0.6C. There is no plausible benefit/cost test that would justify such policies.
So, on legitimacy, and practicality, side propositions case has zero basis whatsoever.

2. The public transportation system will accommodate the shifting people.

( Policy)
Side proposition spoke about how the public transportation sector is key to solving the
issue. The question is, can it? Lets analyze.
The statusquo has 1.2 billion people dependent upon private cars to travel from one
place to another. In New zealand, the parallel is 88 percent. In US 89. In Italy 87.
How does the public sector, which barely survives as of right now accommodate all of
these people immediately? How does the public sector get the trillions it requires to
develop so quickly to accommodate these people? Is side proposition okay with
leaving people with no real way of transportation with the 20-30 years required for
this shift? We get no responses to any of these. Until we get pragmatic justification
for any of these questions, side propositions case remains baseless.

3.More than 900 People die from road accidents every year. We reduce this
number.
So side proposition wants to talk about saving lives. At the same time, theyre okay
with a billion people losing their means of transport, tons of industries, workplaces,
schools, etc. being crippled because of lack of commute, and millions more affected
in job loses due to the fossil fuel industries, the automobile industry. Theyre also okay
with burdening governments in unstable developing and underdeveloping countries
 all over the world to come up with a perfect public transport system. May we see the
logic here?

What will we be proving to you in this debate:

I as the first speaker will be speaking to you why
1. Why the government isnt legitimate in holding the people accountable, when the real
criminals are the fossil fuel industries.
2. Why there are so many other effective solutions to the climate crisis, why make so
many people suffer?
3. How the motion cannot even dent the climate crisis.

My second speaker will be proving to you with pragmatic analysis

1. Why countries cant afford to ban cars in big cities.
2. Why banning cars will cause incalculable damage to the economy, while having
barely any benefit
My third Speaker is going to be speaking about t:
1. Meeting Points
2. Summary.

Arguments

1. Illegitimacy of the motion.

i) The government cannot pass this, knowing it wont affect Climate change:

We cannot stop the climate change crisis, by governments limiting individual contributions to
the green house gas emissions, because fundamentally, the people arent the real ones causing
responsible for climate change, and more practically, it simply isnt feasible.
The International Energy Agency predicts the Covid-19 economic recession will reduce
greenhouse gas emissions this year by 8 per cent. If this decline were maintained for the rest
of the century, a climate model funded by the US Environmental Protection Agency predicts
that the temperature reduction in 2100 would be a bit more than 0.1C. Using the same model,
future temperature effects of much larger reductions in greenhouse emissions are of a level
that I consider trivial. The 2015 Paris agreement, which can easily be evaded by participating
countries: 0.17C by 2100. Zero greenhouse gas emissions by the entire OECD: 0.3C. A 30
per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by the entire world: 0.6C. There is no plausible
benefit/cost test that would justify such policies.
Even then, we cannot achieve it. 50% of the emissions are still carried by the freighters,
heavy-duty and light-duty trucks, airplanes. So, we know that doing this isn't the solution.
Governments have tried to manipulate the energy sector, the fossil fuel sector, but that isn't
enough. To attack the climate change issue, we have to have an impact that focus on
sustainable mitigation in emissions, which doesn't sacrifice 2 whole industries and probably,
our fossil-fuel industry dependent world cannot survive. So we need solutions that give us
the benifit that we need without crippling millions of people due to unemployment and loads
of other discrepancies.
We can decouple, energy benchmark, those are the things we need to be doing.
We both want to hit climate change, but can we manage that by eliminating all convenience
and crippling the global economy. No that is why we are opp.

We need to have sustainable solutions, to stop the crisis.

ii) Alternatives

If global warming is a problem , then create carbon dioxide emission rights and let
individuals decide how to respond. We shouldn’t micromanage market behavior as an
indirect method of limiting those emissions. We micromanaged behavior during the energy
crises of the 1970s, and that gave us the multi‐billion‐dollar synfuels boondoggle, a
disastrously wrongheaded ban on natural‐gas‐fired electricity, and nuclear‐power and
renewable‐energy contracts that make utility rates so high today.

Examples:
a) Setting GHG standards: Light-duty GHG regulations for passenger vehicles and
trucks are projected to: Cut 6 billion metric tons of GHG emissions over the lifetimes
of the vehicles sold in model years 2012-2025 and allowing manufacturers flexibility
in meeting the standards; Nearly double the fuel efficiency while protecting consumer
choice; and Reduce America’s dependence on oil and provide significant savings for
consumers at the pump. Heavy-duty GHG regulations are projected to: Reduce CO2
emissions by about 270 million metric tons over the life of vehicles built under the
program, saving about 530 million barrels of oil; and The proposed “Phase 2”
program includes standards that would further reduce GHG emissions and improve
the fuel efficiency of medium and heavy-duty trucks.
b) Increasing the Use of Renewable Fuels
c) Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Moving Goods
d) Toll roads could be used to reduce demand.
e) as a complete ban is next to impossible, an idea like that of Singapore could be
implemented where public transport is highly modernized and private cars have to pay
a premium to enter the city.
f) fewer licenses could be issued to drive on public roads.
g) Extra focus could be given to walking or cycling tracks in the inner city to decrease
the use of cars lowering traffic time.
 h) An attempt to regulate emission over 10 years, with taxing emissions, and
regulating car contributions to climate change, etc/

iii) Impact:
Banning of cars could end up resulting in hurting the economy:
Public transport in these large cities could get clogged up during certain hours of day. This
inefficiency could lead to prevention of access to the markets leading to potential profits
being lost or even incurrence of losses.
Due to city wide ban on private cars, the automobile sector would suffer a huge blow(due to
various reasons such as reduction in manufacturing, sale, etc) resulting tens of thousands of
people losing their jobs which once again would result into a huge strain on the economy.

You cannot choose to take away that freedom for people and that extremely expensive benefit
and necessity that people have from the means of transport. The main questions at the end of
the day remain unanswered:

1) Is there a necessity to ban cars when other alternatives exist?

2) Does the motion tangibly impact the issue at hand? Is it effective?

Conclusion:

The main questions at the end of the day remain unanswered proposition:

Is there a necessity to ban cars when other alternatives exist?

Does the motion tangibly impact the issue at hand? Is it effective?

We Want action, not distraction.

We are the proposition.

Speaker 2
THW ban private cars in big cities.

Speech: POI Refutation.

Side proposition believes in a completely idealistic and What about We agree that the
unrealistic world. saving the environment is put
Their strategy may seem great at face value, but falls environment? at a shaky position
completely flat on implementation. Carbon right now, but that
emissions? isn’t what the
Arguments: debate revolves
a. pragmatic effects. around. If the side
b. comparative study. proposition wishes
to tackle climate
Firstly, we can observe that the ban of private cars change, then this
vehicles alone is simply not a viable option. isn’t the way to do
so, there are many
For starters, city dwellers in many urban areas in the alternatives out
world rely heavily on personal vehicles to travel. there and many that
we propose that can
If they are banned, people will not be able to travel tackle this side
without the suitable alternative options such as buses or problem.
subway trains which are unfortunately limited in both Carbon emissions
quantity and quality especially in developing countries. from cars don’t
The real reason as to why people in such cities prefer even contribute a
private cars over the public transportation systems is lot to climate
because of the fact that public transportation systems change. This policy
aren’t at their fullest capacity. Countries can’t afford to has already been
ban cars in big cities, it inevitably over-burdens the tested out and
public transportation systems. implemented
More than 80% people in big cities own their private cars, before, but wasn’t
when this motion passes in proposition’s favour, that’s able to achieve the
millions and millions of people late for work and in goal of the EPCC.
cramped up carts, cars, and buses. There’s no positive
and significant
The problem lies in the insufficient infrastructure and change when this
poorly planned cities. passes.
In order to achieve what the side proposition wants, they
must develop infrastructures, remodel and restructure
the city and develop and improve the public
transportation systems to satisfy everyone’s need in the First off, even if it
society. It incentivizes the does, where will the
Since this is a very privileged point of view, it's better to government to government get all
have the motion fall and pass in our favour. improve the the money to
quality of public implement this
On top of that, any prohibition on movement will prove transportation. motion long-term?
to have detrimental effects on the economy since cities Secondly, let’s say
are usually trade and business centers where a lot of governments do
moving is required. improve the quality,
but what about the
In addition to this, where will all the automobiles go is quantity of public
also a big question that falls into this debate. transportation? if
The policy doesn’t not do anything regarding cutting they want to ban
down carbon emissions or the volume of traffic. private cars to cut
off traffic then it
For this reason, in all probability, the surrounding areas wouldn't make any
will overflow with traffic once the ban is applied. difference if they
make many taxis
Government will lose a lot of money and revenue and buses to
annually through taxes on vehicles and subsidies to keep accommodate
the ban or side proposition’s policy going for a long term. millions of people.
This ban causes incalculable damage to the economy Traffic will still
without producing any benefits for the people. Fossil remain. (elaborate
fuel companies and the companies that produce these further with speech
cars will collapse and their strings attached to content.)
contributing to the society will be cut off.
 Thus, it is of paramount importance that the authority
develops a long-term strategy to solve the issue.

Their strategy overlooks some basic factors.

Quite clearly, the cost-benefit analysis doesn’t seem to be
on their side of the house.

Comparative:
If the motion passes in their favour, more problems will
arise. How do we dispose of the cars? How do we support
the economy? Where will we get the money for the
implementation of this motion?
Instead of having to tackle one problem, we would have
so much more. The people of big cities would have ticking
time bombs with them and the government would be in a
tight spot trying to support millions of people in public
transportation.

If the motion falls, cities can continue working at

maximum capacity and efficiently. The government
wouldn’t be over-burdened trying to fill in the costs of
maintaining such an unrealistic plan.

Stakeholders analysis:
People that do own cars of their own become late to
work, late to events and do not have an idea of what to
do with their cars.
The fossil industries and other companies will collapse
and can no longer contribute to the running of the city.
City as a whole. People would get pushed and cramped
around in low quality transportation systems.
Inconveniences will arise and deteriorate the city which
will further leak into other parts of the country.

Even if we take their case at their best, there are many

side effects to this certain experiment they want to go
forward with.

If the motion falls and we side with the status quo, far
more benefit

Speaker 3
THW ban private cars in big cities.

Speech
Clashes
Impact of banning them
The main and only argument that Team Prop bring to
the debate is that private cars substantially contribute
to global warming but we don’t see how this motion
makes an actual change in this situation as this isn’t
tackling the main contributors, corporations and
industries but rather targeting the the average people
that just want to go about their day. Also this only
targets big cities, meaning car usage goes unchecked
in all other areas but at the same time they haven't
defined what they consider a big city, so the actual
areas this motion covers is unclear. The negative
impacts of taking away private cars greatly outweigh
any of the benefits they bring to the table, benefits that
we’ve already proven won’t manifest, regardless of the
area it covers. The biggest and the most apparent
problem their case faces is that they have no way of
going about this motion, no way to specify how they’re
going to handle the millions of people who depend on
these private cars, their commute. They say public
transportation is the answer but public transportation
systems are extremely underdeveloped and
mismanaged (Ex- the US doesn't even have a railway
system and even the bus system is falling apart,
mumbai’s railway and bus systems). When this ban is
implemented, how will they handle the huge influx of
new passengers? How do they fund all of that? Even if
magically the funds were there, how will it be
implemented quickly and efficiently enough so that
there won’t be lasting impacts on the public? Because
these private cars are their primary method of
transportation (88% in US, 89% in Italy), those are
huge parts of the population that will be affected by
this policy. It’s rather irresponsible for the Gov to take
such a step without having a proper plan. They say
this is an incentive for the government to better public
transportation but we don’t see that realistically
happening for the simple reasons of funds and
bureaucratic hoops that we’ve already explained. The
time needed to have a well functioning system will
truly take a long time and even if they get a system up
and running immediately, it won’t exactly be a well-
functioning system. You can’t kill two birds with one
stone. If the abrupt transition is to be taken, the quality
will be terrible and if the quality is to be maintained,
1.2 billion people will be left without a mode of
transportation for an unspecified amount of time.
Realising all these problems, team Opp has already
given you a realistic approach to cutting down on
emissions as a more holistic approach to what Gov is
trying to aim at here, that banning isn't the way to go
 but rather regulation is, setting GHG standards.
We’ve seen through opps speeches how this ban
would eventually start breaking down the economic
system the city runs on because the case put forward
by Gov asks for very constricted mobility and
considering the massive shrink in two major
contributors to the economy (fuels and automobiles)
We see that Gov has put forward why they’re
supporting this motion, not how and even the whys
Opp has taken down through our speeches, so we
believe that Opp should stand.

24th June

Motion:THW prohibit presidents/heads of states from having personal social media

accounts.

Speaker 1

Opening:

Side Proposition seems to love in a world where the president is the authority, they are the
ruler, and their opinions are unanimously replicated by the population. This is the
authoritarian reality that they contradictingly call a democracy. Ladies and gentlemen, if the
jury feels that a democracy is governed by a government elected by a plurality, that a
democracy has an opposition party to question the government, that a democracy works on a
system of checks and balances, then the jury sides with team opposition.

Good Evening, Ladies and Gentlemen. The motion on the floor today is Motion:THW
prohibit presidents/heads of states from having personal social media accounts, and we, as the
opposition, strongly oppose today’s motion.

Refuations:

i)President shows misleading information and this mobilizes the entire population:
a) Political balance(Refer to argument 1.b)
b) Nothing really changes (Refer to argument 1.b)
c) Minority of cases (Trump, Bolsonaro)
d) What about the benefits (Argument 1.b)
ii)The president doesn't lose his access to social media, professional social media are still
accessible:
a) Professional social media, conferences, etc. are regulated and revised to make sure the
perfect image of the president is displayed. Is that really necessary? Do we need to
make sure that the president is never questioned? Dont we need to know the true
colors of the president? (Trump 2016-2020 Example - Argument 1.b)

What are we going to prove to you in todays debate/ Signposting:

1. First speaker:
1. Why it isn't legitimate to ban the personal media in terms of
a) Utility
b) Principle and the fundamentals of democracy
2. Why this does not influence the status quo better in terms of benefiting the society?

Arguments:

1.Why it isn't legitimate to ban the personal media in terms of

a) Principle and the fundamentals of Democracy:

i) Freedom of Choice:
Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a
community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation,
censorship, or legal sanction. The term "freedom of expression" is sometimes used
synonymously but includes any act of seeking, receiving, and imparting information
or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

Freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and recognized in international
human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions
without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this
right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all
kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or
through any other media of his choice

The democratic system relies on the idea that everyone can communicate amongst
themselves. It allows more communication and connection and a direct platform for
communication between the leadership and the people.
The democracy relies on that idea of a government by the people. There is no
reasonable cost-benefit analysis that legitimizes this. Traditional news media however
hinders this benefit. This motion however removes the connection and hinders the
freedom of speech.
 For side proposition to be necessarily justified in taking away the social media
accounts of presidents, they have to tell us how much harm the presidents are causing
by having social media or why social media cannot be given to heads of states by an
inherent moral construct. However, side prop does neither of these things.

Why is it legitimate to take away these social media accounts from presidents only?

ii) Structure of Democracy:

A democracy does not simply have the ruling party in permanent power. If that was
the case, the government would not change every few years.It has an opposition party,
a judiciary, to make sure the presidents views arent the only ones voiced, that there
isnt a monopoly in information exchange. The opposition parties also have social
media accounts and they also can communicate on these social media. Quite simply,
side proposition needs to tell us how these other political leaders and influential
people can have social media accounts, but the president, the leader of the country, on
the same stage as these people, cannot communicate with the people.

Quite simply, this leads to political instability, which i will be discussing in my next
layer, i.e illegitimacy on the basis of utility, does this motion really achieve anything?

b) Utility:
Lets take proposition on their best and assume that it is necessarily legitimate for them
to take away social media accounts from these leaders. Even then, the world would
not become a better place, as side proposition so naively claims. Lets look at what
type of a world we get.

i)Political instability: When side proposition says that politicians wont make mistakes
anymore, their political ideologies wont monopolize the public thoughts, they fail to
realize that presidents arent the only ones with social media. Opposition leaders, the
vice president of the country, other popular politicians, partisans spreading political
propaganda all still exist, and the president loses his part in this political
discourse/competition. Quite simply, proposition is making the political competition
unstable, and disadvantageous for the president.

ii)No real benefit: Side proposition says that people only look to the president for
information. Lets analyze. When the president isnt on social media, people will look
for people of similar status and power, i.e the vice president and simply get their
information from their personal accounts. So all of these ‘disadvantages’ that side
proposition talks about continue to exist.

iii) Counterproductiveness: Not only does this motion fail to achieve its goals, it also
helps those in power to remain in power. Lets analyze. When Donald Trump was
elected by plurality in 2016, noone knew what type of person he was, and how
irresponsible he was. If we go with props case, we would still only see donald trump
 in the light the media and the presidency portray him to be. Without his social media,
we wouldnt know how incompetent a leader he is. Quite simply, social media helps
the people to understand the personality of leaders and expose his true colors, letting
people elect better leaders. We lose out on this benefit when side proposition passes
this motion.

iv)Unique benefit of social media:

The balance of democracy in throwing opinions on social media.
Since platforms do not generally create their content, they contend that they are not
responsible for what users produce and are thus exempt from the libel, defamation,
and other laws and regulations that govern traditional media like newspapers and
television. In other words, they are platforms for free speech and assume no
responsibility for what their users communicate.

v)Interaction between leaders and people:

Former Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren: "Today there are few
alternatives as far-reaching and effective, with very wide audiences and young
audiences, as Twitter. Twitter is another tool that enables me to communicate with
other diplomats and journalists, while also allowing me to add a personal touch.
Twitter is used by politicians including former US president Barack Obama, cabinet
members in Chile, and politicians in Germany, Japan and India.

Conclusion:

What have we proven to you in todays debate:

i) There is no moral justification in taking away a presidents access to social media
ii)Not only does the motion not achieve its goals, it counterproductively impacts the
stakeholders, the people in a negative manner.

We are the opposition.

Speaker 2

THW prohibit presidents/heads of states from having personal social media accounts.

Speech: POI Refutation

Ladies and gentlemen, these presidents have every right Donald Trump Donald Trump lies
like every other person to have their personal social promotes fake in the minority of
media accounts. If it’s their own personal interest to have news and cases. There is a
such accounts and it doesn’t harm the society, then what abuses social massive majority of
viable reason does the side proposition have to prohibit media platforms. heads of states that
this? are on social media
platforms and
Side proposition’s strategy may sound like it tackles exercise their
many of our problems and is great at face value, but it powers ethically
falls flat on implementation. There are many other without taking
effective ways to tackle all of the problems that advantage of such
proposition states. a big platform.
(explain further in
It’s only best for the jury to side with team opposition. the speech.)

a. Why this does not influence the status quo

better in terms of benefiting the society.
b. Comparative study.

As we already know, the current world we live in right

now is filled with propogandas and fake news.
The presidents and heads of states can and do have the
power to deny or confirm all of the claims out there that
dent the society’s identity. Presidents will How democracy
only convey their works is that the
Removing the presidents off their social platforms only ideologies and public elects a
worsens the situation for us to handle. their own views representative that
on issues. matches with their
The proper channel at which the president can ideologies and
communicate with people or the public is taken away and views on issues.
misconceptions grow instead of social harmony. The people don't
just willingly elect
Taking them away from the pictures gives rise to many someone they
problems and strengthens propagandas and fake news, dislike and that
and strengthens the worst case scenario. could potentially
taint the society.
Seeing the motion fall will open the benefits we observe (explain further in
on our side that outweigh the proposition’s plans and the speech.)
strategies at a massive margin.

Crisis management remains efficient and effective, when

something bad or uncontrollable occurs, you don’t need
to contact several conferences.

Addressing the audience, the public, for the presidents

ensures that the information they’re giving out remains Conferences Information in
pure and clear. also give out conferences is
pure information. often filtered out
Presidents having their own platforms to speak on and and isn't authentic.
express their views on or pass information to the Now let’s just
audience will happen without the filter of traditional assume that all
media(news reporters, national television, etc.). information we get
from conferences is
This way the presidents can reach a large number of correct and clean,
people with misinterpretations, target their audience with what happens
precision and receive almost immediate feedback on when propaganda
issues or topics. and
misunderstandings
In order for a side proposition to win this debate, they develop? You’ve
must explain as to what extent they’re taking this essentially taken
prohibition. away the ability for
presidents to
Whether they’re going to keep them from having address these fake
personal accounts or personal accounts and the official news.
government accounts. (explain further in
the speech.)
Either way, on both sides of the story in side
proposition’s case, they achieve nothing of their set
goals.

Side proposition’s strategy blocks genuine information

and restricts presidents of free speech and expression.
As much as the side proposition will argue that this is the
best to tackle propagandas, there isn’t really a necessity
for a prohibition. Secondly, presidents aren’t even the
leading causes to the rise of propaganda and fake news.

A significant change doesn’t occur and the society

doesn't benefit from the passage of this motion.

Let’s look into the potential status of our society if the

motion passes. Propagandas and fake news will flourish,
information will be tossed around and misinterpreted,
information and free speech is blocked, and the society
shaped in a completely different form than what we were
aiming for.

Whereas if the motion falls, the flow of information will

remain pure and confirmed from the giving end.

Society will become healthy on an overall evaluation.

Misconceptions are lowered down and tamable on our
side of the house.

So, even if we take the proposition’s case at their very

best, their objectives, aims and methods don’t align.
There isn't such a need for a restriction on these
presidents having personal accounts.

We propose allowing presidents to have their own

personal social media accounts solely on the fact that it
isn’t legitimate to restrict them from having so.

Stating the above reasons, I beg the jury to side with

team opposition.

25th June
Motion: THBT governments should remove controversial historical monuments.
Speaker 1
Opening:

Side proposition tells us how important it is to keep our views of the people in our history
respected, how people perceive them should not change, even when millions of people
understand and protest that the reason for the creation of the statue is not just, and it displays
questionable ideals. If the jury realizes this simple truth, if the jury realizes that when
something loses its utility, causes more harm than good, it no longer deserves to be respected,
then the jury should side with the proposition.

Good evening ladies and gentlemen. The motion on the floor today is THBT governments
should remove controversial historical monuments, and we as government, strongly affirm
todays motion.

Definitions/ Clarifications:

i)Controversial Historical Monument: A statue, building, or other structure erected to

remember a notable person or event , which later on gave rise to public disagreement.
ii) Remove: Take down a statue or close off a monument from public view

What are going to prove to you in todays debate/Signposting:

1. I as the first speaker will be talking to you about:

a. Why governments have an obligation to remember those ideals that are agreed
upon by the entire society
b. Why these controversial monuments counterproductively impact people rather
than encouraging good ideals
2. Our second speaker will be talking to you about:
a. Why taking down these controversial monuments yields more good than harm
b. Provide a brief comparative of both sides in the debate
3. Our third speaker will be giving the
a. Meeting Points
b. Summary

Arguments:

1. Why it is important to critically analyze who we memorialize

i) “Public statues are intensely political” notes writer Martin Gayford. He outlines the nature
of public memorials and statues, and observes that over time, our appraisal of individuals
changes, for instance as with the thousands of statues of Lenin and Marx brought down after
the fall of the former Soviet Union]. From this perspective, historical monuments do matter
as they can be seen as symbols of norms and values we agree to commemorate, as historian
Professor Christopher Phelps argues . He says that: “History is one thing, memorials another.
As tributes, memorials are selective, affirmative representations. When a university names a
building after someone, or erects a statue to that person, it bestows honour and
legitimacy.”However, the moral value of historical monuments is fiercely contested. For
critics, in removing these statues we are in danger of symbolically removing distasteful
aspects of history which allow us to understand the present. As one South African student
notes in reference to Rhodes: “Removing him omits an essential part of the institutions
history that has contributed to everything good, bad and ugly about it” . In the case of the
Rhodes statue at Oxford, some attempt to place the monument in its historical context, and
note that Oriel College was founded in 1324, and as such, its statues serve as a repository of
history, good and bad. More importantly, they argue: “A salient fact about the Oriel statue of
Rhodes is its date: 1911. It is an echo in stone of a different time.”

Why do people want to remove them?

ii) Advocates of removing statues of controversial figures, suggest that these monuments
represent individuals whose actions and legacies should not be celebrated or memorialised.
And while not agreeing that the statue of Cecil Rhodes should come down at Oriel College
Oxford, author and columnist Timothy Garton-Ash concedes that, “this is a perfectly
legitimate debate about the politics of memory”. For some, the statue of Rhodes represents
the glorifying of a “racist mass murderer of Africans” , and serves to further alienate black
students who study at Oxford and elsewhere. As one Rhodes Must Fall campaigner argues:
“While these histories continue to be forgotten, a sentimentalised, whitewashed statue stands
in the way of academic rigour.” Moreover, our understanding and interpretation of historical
norms and values changes over time, which means we should be constantly re-appraising
historical monuments. “To reconsider, to recast, is the essence of historical practice. It
follows that altering how we present the past through commemorative symbol is not
ahistorical…on the contrary, it represents a more thorough coming to terms with the past and
legacies, a refusal to forget.” Viewing historical figures through critical eyes is vital for
supporters who do not see statues and memorials as benign and meaningless symbols.
Instead, they argue that in the case of the Confederate statues in New Orleans, for example:
“The statues serve less as a testament to the men they depicted than to the cause they
represented, as propaganda to a particular point of view that dominated a particular time.”
Historian David Olusoga claims that the movement to bring down statues of certain historical
figures has a broader aim, beyond the statues themselves, and that it is about former colonial
powers such as Britain accepting past atrocities, and realising that there are aspects of history
which, “should not be uncritically celebrated”, asking if, “we really want to be a society that
uncritically memorialises a 19th century racist.” Ultimately, supporters argue that we should
morally judge figures such as Rhodes – and in that judgement, decide whether or not we
should still have public memorials and statues to them , because “parts of the past are not
dead and symbols matter.”

iii) The main definition of controversial is something that angers the public. So we propose
that the government remove such rage inducing memorials.
Most of the reasons that such monuments cause controversy, or the re ason why it offends
people, is because that most of these statues/monuments are of people who promoted horrific
ideas, like- the statue of Cecil Rhodes, who was a British imperialist who wished to continue
the British rule in South Africa and considered Africans to be inferior to him. The protest
known as ‘Rhodes Must Fall’ sprouted from the controversy this aimed at the people. The
statue known as “Silent Sam”, a statue of a Confederate soldier, was toppled by protestors at
the University of North Carolina. Why? Because it promoted racism.
The statue of Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee was taken down by BLM (Black Lives
Matter) protestors for being racist. And all of these problems- racism, imperialism, slavery,
we are taught about the number of lives given to put an end to these problems. The number of
lives lost while such problems were a thing. And now when we look up at these monuments,
we see those people, those people who supported these ideas, we see them being celebrated,
we see them being respected.

2. Negative Impact:

i)We shouldn't honour such people with horrific ideals, benefiting themselves from the
suffering of others. It goes against the morals of humanity. These statues are not having a
positive effect. That’s for sure. While we cannot hide from our history, nor should we, the
time has come to fully understand the difference between properly acknowledging our past
and glorifying the darkest chapters of our history. We can't forget that this symbol and
symbols like this represent hate and cause many people pain.

ii)Although these statues were not erected to honor discriminatory and morally unacceptable
ideals, the figures they represent also memorialize the values of the time, which are currently
considered morally reprehensible. Slave Ownership, Racism, and widespread discrimination
are not social constructs to be celebrated, or remembered, because values change, societal
principles and structure change.. If side opposition believes that prop is erasing history by
taking down these statues, they must realize that we are not taking down the books, plaques,
the museums, all speaking about these figures. The argument on our side is quite simply,
when these statues arent achieving anything positive, and they are affecting people, making
them feel oppressed, why should they still be up? We think it is important to judge history
fairly and critically, not just glorify every good deed that occurred without explaining the flip
side.

Conclusion:

What have we proved to you in todays debate:

i)Why it is important to judge history critically
ii)Why it is imperative that we take down these statues in terms of :
a. Societal values
b. Negative impacts
iii)How statues are not just reminders of history, but rather represent every action of the
figures, and they are a step back from accepting the change in values in modern society.

We are the proposition.

Speaker 2

THBT governments should remove controversial historical monuments.

Speech POI Refutation

Side opposition doesn’t believe in or support erasing These These

history or editing it in any shape or form. monuments monuments
also represent carry the idea
We’re about adding layers to the history we think we and respect the that these
know. struggles that people are
the minorities inferiors into the
Ladies and gentlemen, there is a clear cut difference have gone present day.
between learning from our past and backgrounds and through. And even if we
glorifying the darkest times and ideologies. take your case
at your best,
a. The necessity of removing controversial why aren’t there
historical monuments. monuments that
b. The effects of the motion. represent such
c. Comparative study. communities?
Instead, we see
Ladies and gentlemen, it’s time to re-evaluate what the people that
makes our society a society. promoted these
immoral ideals.
Taking these controversial monuments down in no way
erases history or heritage, rather it corrects a
monumental mistake: using our resources to glorify
oppression, the wrong idea, and seek to intimidate the You are editing Ladies and
once-oppressed. history and gents, we are
erasing completely
It would, however, be an overwhelming task for heritage. against such an
historians to label and contextualize everything that does idea. In fact,
not conform to present-day norms. having these
After all, democracy and human rights are relatively monuments
recent achievements. represent
Now, the opposing side may argue “how far into history something or
would we be looking?” the other quite
Basically, we have to determine which people and literally sounds
actions we still regard as contributing to forming and like editing and
structuring our society’s identity today. erasing history.
A critical reassessment is essential.

We know some people may argue as to what extent and

direction we are taking this motion, but names, symbols We have A proper
or these monuments are reflections of society. These books, plaques account of
monuments have the power to signify and glorify and schools history in their
something or someone. This motion should stand that give a eyes. People
because history isn’t necessarily history if it doesn’t tell proper account teach you what
the truth. of history. they want you to
know. In no way
People will teach you what they want you to know and will a country
these monuments just add on to this historical state out that
propaganda. they were the
bad guys.
We learned that Andrew Jackson was nicknamed “Old Secondly, if why
Hickory” and was the seventh president of the United do we need
States and we have monuments that respect what he statues if we
has done. have books and
We didn’t learn about his zeal to cruelly remove Native plaques? We
Americans from their ancestral grounds in Southern quite essentially
States and force them to Oklahoma territory or that he don’t. If it
signed the 1830 Indian Removal Act, but championed creates
the relocation of the people he demeaned as “savages.” disagreement
within the public
The truth will and must remain the truth. No matter how or if it causes
many times side opposition will argue that these public outrage,
monuments represent something historically important, there will be
though these people or events may seem like people more good than
and events, but they’ve offended and oppressed the lives harm to remove
of many certain communities. these
controversial
Let’s look into some history. historical
An overwhelming majority of these monuments were monuments.
erected and put up during the Jim Crow era. A time of
racial segregation.
Most of these monuments were not to respect or to
commemorate the sacrifices of the minorities and
vulnerable communities, rather they were put up to
glorify people of supremacy and power and the
inhumane things they’ve done to these vulnerable
communities.

No one erected statues to shame someone or

something, these monuments were to glorify and respect
what these people have done to form a society.

Now side opposition may argue that if these monuments

anger the public so much, then why didn’t they say
anything about it when they were first erected? Well, that
was because these monuments glorified someone’s
ideologies and establishments that favoured the majority.

Comparative:
When the motion passes in our favour, vulnerable
communities or the minorities wouldn't be offended or
wouldn’t continue to be represented as inferior and
regarded as nothing.
Society’s morals and ethics begin to restructure and
soon become healthier.
 If the motion passes in the opposing side’s favour,
protests, riots and disagreement will flow in. Chaos will
break loose. Order will be lost and these monuments will
continue to shape the mindset of people and glorify
something or someone that deserves the public’s
appreciation.

26th June
Motion: This house would ban all medical procedures or cosmetic products intended
to change an individual's racial appearance.

Speaker 1

Opening:

When side proposition claims that people must accept who they are, no matter how harmful
and derogatory it may be for them, they forget that they are okay with changing gender,
religion, and any other social characteristic. Yet, they make no distinction as to why race is so
different, Without this simple justification on their side, side opposition already proves to you
that there is no real reasoning behind taking away people’s bodily autonomy, a testament to
our upper hand in this debate.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. The motion on the floor today is This house would ban
all medical procedures or cosmetic products intended to change an individual's racial
appearance, and we as the opposition, strongly oppose todays motion.

Rebuttals:

1. Race is unique, it is a cultural, historical characteristic. You are denying your

history or your culture.
i) Refer to Argument 1. a)

2. Race change is not normal

i) Argument 1

3. Race change is different from sexual change as social media enables racism

i) We agree that social media enables racism. But at the same time, so many indirectly sexist,
feminist, racist, religiously discriminatory ads are out there. Yet we change religion and
gender. Why not race?
ii) Argument 1a)

4. Model: Allow creams, etc. but ban surgeries

i) If your goal is to impact racism, then by allowing these products to be around, the racist
advertisements around them, etc. shouldnt we ban them too? Where is the distinction. Even if
their premise of transracial change impacting racism was true, even then, Proposition doesnt
impact the statusquo.

What are we going to prove to you in todays debate: Signposting:

1. Today I as the first speaker will be speaking to you about:
a. Why bodily autonomy cannot be taken away, without reasonable and
necessitating justification
b. Why these medical procedures are not based on racially discriminatory
principles
c. Why the motion passing does not achieve its goal, rather counterproductively
harms those who use these procedures
(Negating effectiveness of the solution) It doesnt achieve its goal, and only cripples
those people who are vulnerable and need it for their mental health
2. Our second speaker will be talking to you about
a. Stakeholders analysis
b. Analyze the net pragmatic disadvantage of passing this motion
3. Our third speaker will be speaking to you about:
a. Meeting Points S
b. Summary

Arguments:

1. Obligation to respect Bodily Autonomy:

i) What is bodily autonomy?

Bodily autonomy is defined as the right to self governance over one's own body without
external influence or coercion. It is generally considered to be a fundamental human right.
Why is it important?
Morally: Bodily autonomy therefore protects a person's capacity to make his or her own
decisions in relation to his or her body. It provides for a person's exclusive use and control
over his or her body. The government has no right to tell anyone what to do with their body
and what they cannot, unless there is reasonably significant pragmatic or moral reasoning to
negate the right to autonomy.

ii) To questions to answer, to prove that side proposition has no moral basis.
a) Where is the distinction between transsexual change and trasnracial change or change
in religion to transracial change?

As we have already mentioned in the rebuttals, side proposition’s main reasoning behind why
transracial change is so horrible is that race involves centuries and culture and you have to
respect that history as a person. Let us set a few premises here. Firstly, lets assume that your
whole family was christian. Does that mean that you cannot convert to Islam? Are you not
neglecting your culture, which you were born into, by converting from religion to religion.
Why is bodily autonomy so important in this premise? The issue with side propositions case
is, it basically says you have to conform to whatever characteristics you are born into . You
cannot change any characteristic, you do not have the freedom to make decisions that contrast
these boundaries, no matter how beneficial they are for you. Quite simply, side proposition is
against the freedom of choice. So for side proposition to win in this debate, they have to give
us a moral principle so fundamental that it outweighs the freedom of choice, or a pragmatic
harm that is so huge that it simply is too stupid to do. However, they do neither of these
things
Where is the moral justification here?
b) Does transracial change really impact racial discrimination?

Lets analyze again. We on opposition obviously agree that racial discrimination is out there,
and we cannot argue that. We are confused as to how this transracial change really impacts
racism in any way. Even if it did, side propositions solution to the issue is queer due to two
reasons:

The people who use these surgeries arent ones trying to overcome racial boundaries. Let us
take the example of transexual change. If you are born a woman and you want to change your
gender to a man, does that mean that you want to overcome sexist boundaries? Does that
mean, that it enables and encourages every single woman on this planet to overcome this
sexist boundary and enable sexism, because its just too difficult? Quite simply, no, and we
see this pragmatically. Society already contains the ingredients to ensure conformity. People
have emotional and cultural attachments and thought-structures that make them align certain
standards to themselves, and these arent influenced by societal discriminatory standards, they
are influenced by personal ideals which make people feel better about themselves. This
means that the people who end up really changing their racial appearance are the people who
either have low mental health and are at risk of mentally collapsing from low mental
standards, or people who want to feel more confident about themselves, based on personal
ideals. If they think they feel more confident with a certain appearance, why not let them do
it. So quite simply, the people who do these surgeries arent people looking to overcome any
discriminatory boundaries. Because if that was the case, every black person would be trying
to become white. Every woman would be trying to become a man. And every person would
try to convert to the societally dominant religion. That simply does not happen. So quite
simply, side propositions premis fails to be true.

As this change doesnt really impact or encourage racism, like we just proved, its obvious
that banning it wont solve racism, or even impact it. Quite simply, racism is a lot more
deeprooted than a few vulnerable people. Side propositions justification as to why we should
ban these services, is that people have implicit biases and inherent feelings that are influenced
by social media, and other pop culture, and so we shouldnt be allowing people to enable
them. As we just proved, that simply isnt going to happen. But lets analyze propositions
solution. What the government is essentially saying is, we know we have racist companies
and ideals, we know we dont stop those, but what we are going to do is, we wont change how
society thinks about a certain race, but we’ll take away your bodily autonomy, you mental
health and your ability to be free. The logic is ridiculously unsuccessful. It simply does not
make sense. If So one hand, we know banning this wont even dent racism. On the other hand
the hundred or thousand or millions who undergo this surgery lose out on their small
benefits. The people impacted are those who lose their mental health and freedom. Side
proposition achieves nothing, but they impact the people who use this surgery. So quite
simply, the motion causes more harm than good, pragmatically.You don't hit racism, you
don't do it because societal perceptions and social discriminations are not based on changing
ones race, gender or religion, and restricting them doesnt impact any of these injustices. The
issue of racism is a lot more deep rooted, and it can't be solved by simply banning a relatively
ambiguous commodityPeople lose their ability to have incremental change in their lives.
At the end of the day prop doesnt solve racism, it simply effects and cripples those people
who need the surgery.

In order to impact proposition main problem , i.e racism, shouldnt we be going after the huge
companies which profit off of racism? Shouldnt we stopping advertisements that enable this
racism rather than taking away beneficial commodities? These are all reasonable and
effective alternatives to the motion. Why then, do we still necessarily take away peoples
freedom?

Conclusion:

What have proved to you in todays debate:

i)Racial change does not impact societal perceptions or racism
ii)The motion is not morally ‘necessarily’ justified
iii)The motion harms the vulnerable people, rather than benefiting anti-racism.

We are the opposition.

Speaker 2
THW ban all medical procedures or cosmetic products intended to change an individual’s racial
appearance.
Speech POI Refutation

Just because one doesn’t look like what their race is People want to Ladies and gents,
supposed to look like, it doesn’t mean they’re supposed to change their this isn’t a
be denied their cultural background. appearances not monkey see,
because they monkey do type
Medical procedures or not, someone’s appearance want to, but of thing that when
doesn’t rewrite or write their cultural past or ancestral because of the media
background. media influence. promotes
a. Effects of the motion. something,
b. Comparative study. everyone is to
follow in.
The effects of the motion are deeply concerning the side (more detail in the
proposition’s end. speech.)
Ladies and gentlemen, if the jury believes and stands with
respecting people’s rights and solidarity, the jury sides
with team opposition.

If it benefits the patient(a person who seeks such medical Allowing the ban Allowing such a
procedures and cosmetic products.) and brings them will bring ban will bring
satisfaction, then why does the side proposition want to solidarity and many adverse
deny people of such a right? social harmony effects. Solidarity
into the world. means
In order for a side proposition to win this debate, they acceptance, and
must prove to us as to why the necessity of the ban even if you believe so,
exists. then it is only
reasonable to
The only time a ban must prevail is when society as a accept and
whole is dented and affected negatively. respect
someone’s right
It doesn’t harm society to exercise one’s right of bodily to change their
autonomy. People could use these products and appearance.
procedures as a coping mechanism to vulnerability. Social harmony
will and cannot
Now if the problem seems to be racism and discrimination prevail on your
and the rise of stereotypes, side proposition doesn’t side of the house
achoeve their goal of eradicating such a problem. considering the
Instead it actually makes the situation harder for us to mindset of people
handle and tackle. is difficult to
shape.
Black markets will rise at alarming rates and illegal acts (more detail in the
will flourish into the society. The problems of racism and speech.)
colorism will resurface and nothing would have changed
on their side except the addition of problems. People
would still find a way to opt or to access such procedures
and cosmetic products because the thought of bringing
satisfaction to themselves still remains.

Passing this motion won’t erase the thoughts from

individual’s heads of opting for these procedures and
cosmetic products. Again, the truth remains, letting this
motion pass doesn’t bring any positive and significant
change into our world.
By allowing this motion to pass, you are simply taking
away the rights or the ability for people to feel content with
themselves or satisfied with the way they present
themselves.
Now, we don’t want a side proposition to argue that
people will soon learn to love themselves and if not, they
need to find a way to be happy with what they currently
have because of the underlying truth that is a long and
heavy process to go with and the fact that not everyone
has a mindset so open that everything in set in stone for
them to love themselves for who they are.

And even if we take their case at their very best, ladies

and gentlemen, by the time people learn to love
themselves for who they are, chaos would have already
broken loose in the state.

If the motion falls and passes in our favour, people that

are insecure about their appearances can and have the
ability to bring satisfaction to themselves.

Whereas if the motion passes in their favour, we see

illegal acts rising and the black market growing, racism
and discrimination growing and the denial of rights.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you respect people exercising

their right to choose what they feel is best for them and
you wouldn’t want to deny it from them, then it’s best to
side with team opposition.