Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

Motions:

1st
aff.
Intro
Anec
dote/

Stanc
e

Signp
ostin
g
Rebut
tals
Stubs
tantiv
es

That it is better to keep quiet in the face of injustice for the sake of peace.
That it is sometimes right for government to restrict freedom of speech.

Good day.. my name is Abraham from


Lodge.
In a democracy where needs of majority
take precedence, often times the voice of
minorities no matter how significant, is
silenced. Todays debate basically discuss
this dilemma that we cannot have the
cake and eat it too.
We believe that peace and prosperity,
more often than not, is more important.
Also, accodring to Maslows Hierarchy,
basic physiological needs such as food
and shelter must come first before man
can progress towards ideals and reach
greater goals of life to attain selfactualisation.
I will present two arguments. i.e.
1) Necessary action for the greater good
2) Protecting the lowest common
denominator
-noneOn to my first argument
[name of argument]
1) Necessary action for the greater good.
[analysis]
The government has a duty of care

wkquay@gmail.com

towards its citizens. Its duty to ensure that


evey citizens receive at least basic
sustenance and amenities. And when
there are concurrent demands towards a
limited source, the government has to
offer it based on needs basis. Hence, it is
not unusual that certain rights of the
privileged are denied.
[examples] [+extra analysis within
examples]
For instance, when there is a picket to
ban cruelty towards how chickens are
being kept. The government has to realise
that the livelihoods of those poor farmers
depend on it. Yes, undeniably, the
chickens could have had better living
conditions and better still left, to roam
wild in open space. But this is unfeasible to minimise losses and save every single
penny, those farmers have no choice to
breed them in cages. Futhermore, these
savings are also passed on to consumers
and that is how we get affordable meat.
The government cannot bow down to the
demands of those animal right
movements who on their lofty high horse
are insensitive towards the fact that most
people are actually getting by. They might
be principally correct but this idealistic
rose tinted glass perspective cannot be
practice. So sometimes, it is only right
that governments shut these nave voices.

wkquay@gmail.com

[link]
Therefore, it is justified that certain
demands be denied. Yes, freedom of
speech is a right. But it is not absolute and
should not impinge on some one elses
right.
This then neatly ties in with my second
argument.. i.e.
[name of argument]
2) Protecting the lowest common
denominator.
[analysis]
The majority of society are able-bodied
and have the means to voice their
concerns, either through their apparent
wealth, popularity or connections.
They, however, are not the only stake
holders in society. Minority
underprivileged people disabled, single
mothers, those who live under the poverty
line just to name a few, also should
have a say as to how a countrys direction
is heading to. A ruthless dog-eat-dog
society with strong economy or a loving
and caring society but with a less robust
economy.
If we allow the voice of the majority to
drown these people, then an unhealty
society result. This is terrible nation
building.
[examples]

wkquay@gmail.com

Sum
mary

A fast paced city like Seoul have turned


their citizens into shallow, impatient and
materialistic people. Some cultural values
have been put behind. This results the
poorer and under achieveing
segments of the society not being able to
marry. There has now been an increase in
honest and hardworking men, ending up
having to order brides from abroad. The
less than handsome according to
societal standards is not any fault of
their own but a media propaganda.
[link]
Thus, governments have to mute the loud
and powerful voices and listen in to the
silenced voices of its people.
So what have I presented in the last 3
minutes..
That the government have to sometimes
make difficult decissions and even cut
back a little of people rights to create a
more fair society. This social engineering
is all part of the duty of a government.

wkquay@gmail.com

1st
Neg
Intro
Anec
dote/

Stanc
e
Signp
ostin
g
Rebut
tals

Good day.. my name is Ibrahim from


Chalet.
There are certain rights which are
unalienable such as right towards clean
water, food and shelter. And this also
should extend towards the right to how
you determine your life.
Side opposition believes that freedom of
speech is not a privilege but a right. They
should not be pushed aside as
unachieveable ideals.
Two arguments from me i.e.
1)
2)
But before that some rebuttals..
1. Abraham said the government has a
duty of care. Yes, but not at the expense
of the inherent right to expression.
Freedom of speech serves only to allow a
conveyance of message and any form of
infringement of basic right does not occur,

wkquay@gmail.com

since they are of different natures.


2. Also, his example that those pickets will
cause the poorer to be harmed. This is a
clear misrepresentation of the nature of
pickets. A picket is merely a peaceful
demonstration to create awareness. This
might cause an uneasy feeling amongst
chicken farmers. But if they alleged that
the chickens are really cheap, then people
will keep buying them anyway. No is harm
done.
3. The affirmative is confused about the
issue and stated that it can only choose
between caring for the poor or making
their cronies happy. This is a false
dichotomy.
Both can co-exist and do not necessarily
have conflicting means and ends.
Stubs
tantiv
es

Having said that, let me go on to my


point. First being,..
[name of argument]
1)
[analysis]

[examples
.
[link]
This then beautifully ties in with my
second argument.. i.e.
[name of argument]

wkquay@gmail.com

Sum
mary

2)
[analysis]

[examples]

[link]
Thus,
So what have I presented in the last 3
minutes..

wkquay@gmail.com