BUILDING
CONTEXT
As a proposition in a debate, you
are required to setup a clear context of the debate; that is, to provide
description about the problem(s) that the debate wants to solve (especially in
a practical debate where you are expected to bring a set of policies). While
you may have found what the problem is, to explain it in a well manner to your
audience is sometimes difficult. Below are some approaches you can use to do
it:
1. Using
facts and statistics
Outlining the facts or statistics of the problem(s)
in the status quo allows you to create an urgent stance on your team; thus,
allowing you to justify your action (which is the motion). In the debate about
banning smoking, for example, you can bring facts about how many people become
the victims of cigarette (how many die and suffer long-term diseases). It is
always good to know one or two facts about the motion.
2. Using
simple, factual narrative
If you
don’t really know the facts about what is going on out there, using narrative
can be an alternative. Using narrative involves telling vividly how bad the
problem is without referring to numerical data to your audience. For example,
in the motion, “THR the norm of individuals/authorities reaching out and
actively stopping individuals from attempting suicide”, you can describe how
bad it is when people actively attempt to save those who want to commit
suicide. To do it, you can describe the awful feeling and psychological state
of those attempting to suicide (for example by telling how traumatic it is to
lose all family members due to certain accidents) and therefore saving them is
only getting them back to stay in that traumatic condition.
3. Using
moral ground
Sometimes,
using moral ground is a good way to kick off the debate. In using this
approach, you need to explain a certain philosophy or idea and how it is not
catered (available) in the status quo, and the motion is supposedly able to
cater that idea. For example, in the motion of legalizing prostitution, you may
explain how prostitutes do not get many of their rights & protections. In
addition, you can also explain the wishy-washy stance of government in the
status quo regarding prostitution. In Indonesia, for example, government
actively conducts raids and sends them to correctional facilities in one hand,
but on the other hand, still allows the building of localizations that become
the place for them to work. By doing this, you show there is a moral stance
that government has to take in this debate; that is, government has to protect the
prostitutes because nevertheless, they are still common citizens having the
right to be protected.
EXAMPLES
1.
THW
allow organ donation for profit
“Ladies and gentlemen, I think what
is clear today is that a lot of people die in the need of an organ when they don’t
actually need to. Every ninety minutes in the United States of America, someone
on the waiting list of an organ dies[H1] .
So, by the end of this debate or a little bit after, someone has died on the
waiting list because they could not get an organ. So, this is under the status
quo with the current organ donation system. So, I think what this debate is clear about is
finding a kind of solution so that people who are sick to their faults or not
their faults, we don’t really care, but if I need an organ, can I be able to
get an organ?[H2]
And what we’re gonna propose on this side of the house under the topic that we will allow
organ trading for profit is for people who have healthy organs to sell it to
people who don’t have healthy organs for money[H3] .
What I would do is I would present a model, and how we presume this would
happen, then I
would present two arguments; firstly, the argument on bodily integrity and why
people have a right to do whatever they want for their body; and secondly how this
would reduce harms and problems occurring in the status quo[H4] .
2.
THR
the norm of individuals/authorities reaching out and actively stopping
individuals from attempting suicide
In cases of suicide, we say on side
of opening government that the victims who opt in to suicide are, in the vast majority of
instances, at the very edge of their life. This means that they have probably
been through years of depression. This means that they’ve probably been in
which just makes them think that their life has no point to be living as a
whole[H5] .
The point in which you force them to not going to suicide because it’s the only
way which they are able to opt out of their suffering is when you pull them
back to the vicious cycle and you force them to go through every single trauma
that have previously trapped them it’s where they cannot opt out from[H6] .
Imagine,
your family has died, your children has died in a car crash in which you are
involved in. You are the driver, and maybe you are also disabled. Your duties
are two things; firstly, you are disabled, therefore you cannot function
normally; secondly, you are the cause of why your family has died to begin
with. There is no point of you living your life knowing that your children
already is not there, knowing that your wife in a car crash in which you cause[H7] .
You say, look, “It doesn’t matter, there are other creature things in life,” is
a direct insult towards the mentality of these individuals to begin with. We
don’t think it’s fair to push them back into the vicious cycle. Hence, the
stance from opening government is simple; is that we would like to give the
choice for these individuals to choose suicide simply because it’s the life in
which they should have autonomy over[H8] …..
So, there are two things I’d like to talk about in my speech. The first
point I’m going to answer starting from PM is that what is the psyche of
victims of suicide[H9] …….
3.
THBT
Google should notify the state authorities when anyone searches for resources
that glorify or encourage suicide
Whatever liberal philosophy like
dictates about the concept of suicide and modern world, there is something very
wrong with the society that just comment “sad” about the 17 years old who hang
herself in a room when nobody is looking. Each life loss is a problem, a
tragedy, and a sadness itself, but we also consider as a government, the
continuously increasing number or trend of life loss because of this kind of
thinking that it’s okay for a person to take her own life upon her own decision
because somehow the decision to take that instead of life is always a rational,
respectable one[H10] . Within those grounds of
proposition, we propose to you today that google should notify the state authorities when
anyone searches for resources that glorify or encourage suicide[H11] . Today, state authorities in this motion would
notify the family members or government officials depending on need and
depending on the situation that a person might be contemplating suicide. And to
define glorify or encourage suicide, is we say, either; a) they depict suicide
in a positive way, for example say, that parents or friends will finally regret
how bad they treated you, for example, if you commit suicide, such narrative as
those. Second of all, we would also consider sites that provide explicit
instruction on suicide[H12] . Now, we’re not talking about shutting down
these sites because that is a separate issue altogether[H13] . But, we consider that the people
repeating going to such sites is a clear sign that they may be contemplating
suicide, and it’s good if they are not. But if there is repeated sign, we think
the state has ground for intervention in this case because suicide is a unique
problem in the SQ. Now,
the proposition carry 3 burden of proofs; the first, is that there is a clear
harm of suicide in society. Second, that the government has active interest in
preventing suicide. And ultimately, this, our model, will save life[H14] . So, today proposition has 3
agreements; the
first that we would justify the uniqueness of the situation in the face of
privacy of information that this motion causes to question[H15] .
POI: “Will your side this policy for matters such as
encouraging/glorifying domestic abuse or encouraging/glorifying terrorism?”.
Answer: “No, because in the cases of encouraging/glorifying
domestic abuse/terrorism, there are so many different ways to regulate that,
because domestic violence is not a secret, it’s something physical, it’s
outside, and also terrorism is that way as well. There is more communication
and concrete action that we do have matters to regulate that. But suicide is a
secret one, it’s done within one private ground, often in one’s room, and it’s
increasing isolated society within one’s own mind without any chance to express
his or her own fear. That’s why we believe today that this is a unique
situation.
[H16] The second argument…
THW BAN SMOKING
A. Facts
& Statistics
“Ladies and gentlemen, in 2006, WHO
estimated that 26% male died in the developing world because of smoking. We on
side of proposition think it’s a terrible problem to see, and we need to do
something about it.”
B. Moral
Ground
“We think there is a problem in the way people
regard the right of individuals. There is something wrong when people say that
they have a right to smoke when in fact that results in the devastating
diseases to them, even leading to death.”
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar