Debate term 3

Affirm 1: Quality
As exams are mainly based on what students can remember from their lessons, they just have to
learn by heart all of the information their teacher taught to obtain high scores without critical
thinking and imagination to get an insight into the lessons. Hence, students that may be excellent
at critical thinking but not really good at memorizing things cannot. In addition, those tests can
check certain kinds of skills such as writing and memorizing. These means that what they have
done in exams is only their superficial knowledge and cannot reflect skills they obtained during
courses/ semesters. In addition, due to this traditional evaluation, fraud has been common in
exams. We can set the 2018 national examination as an example: scores of 44 candidates were
illegally  corrected in which most of their parents are the authorities of Hoa Binh province. This
indicates that authorities abused their positions, power and this unfairness with other
contestants. 
Our team has proposed 2 reasons to support our viewpoints: creativity limitation and quality...
Refutation:
I’ve got your idea. As your reason is quality  I agree with your viewpoint to some extent.
However, as you have mentioned the exam fraud in Son La- Hoa Binh in 2018 as an example, I
think it is not suited to our condition at the time being. Which I mean is what you have provided
is outdated since our government punished all of whom committed a mistake. Furthermore, our
machinery has positively changed in the way of working as well as ensuring and remaining an
accurate and transparent evaluation in recent years. The results of national examinations since
2019 have been concrete evidence. Additionally, exam fraud you mentioned previously is just  a
fly in the ointment besides numerous achievements. 

Affirm 2 : Creativity limitation

+) These days tests are mainly performed in writing form, it’s the test of memory, and if you do
not have a good memory => fail 
+ ) block students creativity since they just learn and remember instead of using these knowledge
to create what they want 
+ ) Example : in Khaheej times ( famous as new york times, ) 2015, Dr Ayoub Kazim, Managing
Director of Dubai Knowledge Village. In a poll that surveyed 5,891 respondents, 75 per cent said
tests in formal education reduced creativity. “The education system needs to change completely.
We need an overhaul. Starting from kindergarten upwards, we have to incorporate changes,”

Refutation :
+) no data show that exam decreases the creativity
+) 2015 is so far in the past, education has changed a lot
+) In covid, we have lots of methods replacing writing paper but it seems like students  are still
not involve in these methods

Negative 1: Quality 
Thank you ladies and gentlemens, today we are debating the resolution “Should examinations be
replaced” . My name is Y and I am from the negative team, who disagree with this resolution. I
have one main reason: “Quality”. 
Exams at the end of the year are given so the teachers can understand if the students understood
the materials throughout the school year. Depending on how the students do on the exam, tell the
teachers what the students did or did not learn. What the teachers put on the exams is the
material that the students should know and that may give them the advantage of getting a good
score. If the teachers give the students a different assessment that doesn't include all the
information they should know, that won't really give the teachers the progress of the student.
Moreover, the quality of exams have been proven for a long time. If we put in a new practice
,who can make sure that the new type of assessment will be more effective or not? 

Refutation: 
Y has talked about the quality of examinations which has been proven and used for a long time.  
You said that the teacher will know about what students have tiếp thu, through examination. 
I don't agree with you. Take the national enhanced exam as an example, we all know that
nowadays, this test uses multiple choice questions. Whether teachers really know what students
learned when they sometimes choose the correct answers luckily. 
Moreover, you didn't give any statistics about how effective the examination is so your point of
view is not convincing.
Vì vậy exams chưa chắc đã phải cách tối ưu nhất để đánh giá học sinh.

Negative 2: Mental Effect 

Changing the exam method is always a controversial issue for students, teachers as well as the Ministry of
Education. In my opinion, EXAMS SHOULD BE REPLACED By OTHER FORMS OF ASSESSMENT
because it affects the mentality of the students. Students always have to change their learning methods to
accommodate other types of assessment. That makes students nervous before every assessment.
Moreover, many exams change but do not clearly show the direction of the exam which can cause
students to feel pressured by new assessment methods. If you keep the old exam format, it will help
students have an overview, thereby offering effective learning methods for themselves. Besides, it also
puts pressure on the examination, how to make the exam both to ensure the quality and also to assess the
student's ability. For example, In 2020, The Ministry of Education asserted that they will no longer
organize the national high school exam for all students in the whole country, the selection of these
students will be left to universities to be a host. This has become a matter of controversy. And certainly
when the universities host, the exam will be much more difficult, the opportunity to get into the top
schools is very hard for students. Therefore, students have to study under pressure to get into the school
they want.

Refutation:
You said that changing exam format leads to mental effects. Students are under more pressure because of
the new exam format and then you give an example to prove it. However, Your example doesn't have
specific sources.According to British education newspaper, it indicated that At present many schools,
colleges, and universities assess their students by means of final examinations. These can be very
stressful and the majority of students usually do worse in normal exams compared to in other
forms of assessment. Exams cannot measure a student's ability to the fullest. Maybe on the most
important exam they didn't do well for some reason. But there will be other assessment methods
that will help them get their scores back. That will reduce the pressure on students. Help them
learn and accumulate knowledge in the right sense. 

WEEK 2: SELECTIVE SCHOOL

Affirmative 

Affirmative 1: Quality
Ladies and gentlemen, today we are debating on the resolution “Selective schools are better for
children”. My name is Y and I am from the affirmative team who strongly support this
resolution. I have one main reason: The quality
In comprehensive schools, teachers would be absorbed in helping  children get lower scores.
Therefore, attending a selective school, students will explore their full potential. When they are
grouped  with high achievers who share similar interests and motivation, they will be given
chances to learn more. Moreover, the lessons are harder and the classmates are smarter, which
provides a stimulating environment. 
According to Information Technology Department, in top 200 high schools having highest
average score in university entrance exam, there 50 selective high schools on top of the list 
Refution: 
I got your idea, you've talked about gifted schools having high quality in teaching and they also
give children a better environment than mainstream schools. 
However, everything has two sides and this case is not exceptional. Learning in selective schools
requires students to learn a large amount of knowledge. As a result the pressure on students will
be much more. 
Secondly, in the statistic you give do not having specific time, so we don't know whether it is
updated or not

Affirm 2: Opportunities (Ha)

I'm X, I'm supporting our viewpoint with another reason: opportunities. Selective schools not
only give a chance for students to develop  but also help the government to find out and train
competent ones. Selective schools allow gifted students to study regardless of their social
background, which creates opportunities for poorer background students to climb the social
ladder. Additionally, talented pupils have the opportunity to accompany like- minded guys that
stimulates them to virtually improve and develop their potence. On the other hand, as students 
flock to selective schools, it is easier for our governments to elect candidates for international
competitions. James Merlino- Australian Education Minister said: “ The Government wants to
ensure that regional students get access to the excellent education resources provided by select-
entry schools” which shows the importance of apprehensive schools in educating students.
Refustation:
I’ve got your idea: opportunities. To some extent, I agree that selective schools help the
government with finding talents. However, you have claimed that selective schools give
competent students a chance  to study in regardless of their background as well as create poorer
ones opportunities to climb up on the social ladder and I assume that those supports are not
accurate and well- founded. To be more precise, mainstream and comprehensive schools also
bring numerous opportunities for students to develop without any carings about their
background. What students have to do is wholeheartedly focus on courses and make their best
efforts to study. Their achievements are created by their efforts, hardworking and believing in
themselves. Which I mean here is not a denying of selective schools being effective, it is just a
negligible part of success that may not meet students demands.

Negative 1 : Social comparison

Parents aim to send their children to high-scores and challenging studying programs since they
think this is better. And, better is the word of comparison . Then, they had a mindset of being in
gifted school is sth special and if you are not able to achieve that, it’s such a failure, It really
creates social comparison. And based on this mindset, it leads to the fact that in the future, they
will think being in a famous company, high position is sth big, but actually, just like, I am a
worker, you are manager, each has their own work, not better than anyone. Take myself as an
example, I am a student in a gifted school, and I am always an example of my friends since they
have a belief that you're so cool to be in here, and they are not as good as me , and this is not a
good point in educating. For this reason, I strongly believe...

Refutation : Hi my name is X, I come from…. I’ve got your idea, you talked about social
comparison, you said that it’s good for children to have a mindset of comparing themselves to
others. But since I’ve got your opinion, it seems like comparison comes from the education
method of their parents, since you mentioned “ parents aim to send their children to selective
schools because it’s better “, so actually, we cannot blame the school, it’s just a neutral objective.
Moreover, you did not mention sth about data or statistics for your opinion. I wonder if it's just
your own view or being surveyed, so it’s definitely not convincing.

Negative 2: UNFAIRNESS.
It Is very unfair and unjust students that go to a selective school are most likely to be chosen for
jobs over those who didn't go to a selective school regardless of who is brighter. How is this fair?
Shouldn't all students be given the same opportunities in life? Also students are regarded as
smart and are regarded higher in life. They assert that Students are more competent and in
selective schools there will be good teachers to teach. Besides, A fully comprehensive system
would ensure good results for everyone. According to the education newspaper, in recent years,
the entrance standards of specialized schools are only slightly higher than those of non-
specialized schools in the same province. Therefore, Education is a right, not a privilege. A good
education should be available to all, not just the elitist stratum whilst the majority are left to rot
Refutation : I don’t agree with you. You said that it's not fair because students who go to
selective schools will have more job opportunities. However, not every school that specializes in
is favored, they also have to make efforts to meet the criteria set by that company. Their scores
are not everything, besides they also have to learn outside to get more knowledge and
experience. And those are the things they have access to in that selective school. Because they
have spent a large amount of money to be able to have a good environment to experience. The
example you give shows that the benchmarks of the selective schools are only slightly higher
than the non-specialized schools. But that's only a very small part of the downside. And for
example the entrance benchmarks of Amsterdam or Chu Van An are very difficult to achieve.
WEEK 3 : Free Healthcare
Affirmative 

Affirmative 1: Fairness 
Ladies and gentlemen, today we are debating on the resolution “Should healthcare be free for all
the residents”. My name is Y and I am from the affirmative team who strongly support this
resolution. I have one main reason: The fairness
Free health care brings fairness to the poor. I believe that every citizen should have equal access
to health care as well as equal opportunity to treatment no matter how rich they are. 
For example in the EU some countries use the Universal health care system which is provided
free of charge by doctors. This system helps the poor to get a chance to have high tech treatment.
We can compare with a country where people have to pay for all the costs and you can see the
big gap in the life expectancy between the poor and the rich. In the first published journal of the
American medical Association, 2014 it is found that the life expectancy of the wealthiest 5% of
America was 12 years longer than the poorest 5%. While inconstrat within the UK, one of the
country using The Universal health care system the disparity in the life expectancy was only 5
years
Refutation: 
I got your idea, you have talked about free health care allowing the poor to have a chance to
access hightech treatment. i don't totally agree with this idea
However, if healthcare is free, there will be an increase in taxes to support it. More funds needed,
causing tax to increase again and a vicious cycle happens, causing it to be unsustainable in the
long run. For more detail, it means that for some poor healthy people they still have to pay higher
tax, even when they do not use the free health care system regularly. 
So whether to turn the matter over, is free health care really fair or not? I think the answer is not 

Affirmative 2: Quality of life

Healthcare should be free for everyone so that nobody gets left out. With a free health care
system, Anyone can get a health check. Especially poor or less fortunate people, they will not
have to think about paying hospital fees and still have adequate health care.  People will be more
willing to go to hospitals because they are free, which enables doctors to find potential risks in
patients and prevent some chronic diseases. Therefore, there is no doubt that the life expectancy
in this region will increase. The United States has a world class healthcare system along with
that, they have very good health insurance policies for people so their health is guaranteed.
Besides, free access to healthcare also allows interns in hospitals to have more chances to
diagnose a variety of patients for more people will come to hospitals. Interns can start from
diagnosing some slight diseases and this allows them to gain practical experience, contributing to
the medical quality.

Refutation: I don’t agree with you, you said that Free healthcare will improve their quality of
life. However, that freedom will make people dependent on it. People will tend not to take good
care of themselves because they know they will get free care with the best health system. And
when there are too many patients, the hospital will be overloaded, there will not be enough
manpower and medical supplies to serve. Moreover, the Government will also have to shoulder
great responsibility and great damage as well. You also give Us as an example. But you don't cite
sources nor specific numbers to prove it. According to the BBC, the free care and good health
system in Canada make people believe that Canada is a good place to live. However, Canada
today faces a crisis towards the healthcare system.
   
                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                             
                        

          

Negative 1 : Increase Government debt

Governments aren’t that great at running large systems, and asking the government to run
healthcare could lead to a lot of problems. To run the healthcare system, there may need to be
cuts made in other areas of the government that weaken those areas to compensate for the needs
of the healthcare system. I mean, it’s not reasonable for some groups of countries to have free
healthcare, since free health care does not mean we don't need to pay for doctors, nurses,
quipments, but it means these payment burden on the government's shoulders, and they need to
take money from other areas to compensate on. Existing U.S. government healthcare programs,
such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program or other types of
programs like WIC programs, are already putting a huge strain on the public budget. Adding a
universal healthcare program to these would amount to enormous growth in government
spending and debt ( according to formosapost.com, a great website about healthcare, published in
April 2021 ) . Based on that reason, I believe that…

Refutation : I’ve got your idea, you’ve talked about government debt , and the reason is that the
government doesn't have enough money to compensate for free healthcare. But actually, your
source is not convincing, you did not mention the percentage of debt of the US government, what
if it’s just a small amount of money ? And it’s quite objective if you just talked about the US,
what about other countries ?Do they face the same thing ? Moreover, based on ncbi.com, a
national library of medicine , which included a wide range of original research, healthcare
expenditure can result in better provision of health opportunities, which can strengthen human
capital and improve productivity, thereby contributing to economic performance. And therefore,
free healthcare can positively impact long term economic results. Which is surveyed and
researched clearly and convincingly

Negative 2: Qualities (ha)

That residents do not have to pay a fee for their visits, treatments may lead to several
consequences. To serve all residents, we need a tremendous amount of medicine, equipments…
to meet patients' demands which means that the qualities of those items might not be the latest or
the advanced ones. Furthermore, patients may have to wait in long queues for a long time to have
a check-up which can obviously be seen in hospitals, especially  upstream hospitals such as Viet
Duc, Bach Mai, Saint Paul… Besides, a free healthcare system means doctors and nurses salaries
are quite low. Hence, the number of ppl wanting to be doctors, nurses decrease which may cause
the lack of staff in hospitals and even if there isn't any shortage of staff their treatments may not
be the optimal owing to the overload.

Refustation: 

I’ve got your idea. To some extent, I find your reason true, however what you have mentioned
can be solved. Regarding the quality of medicine and medical equipment, I believe that besides
governmental funds and budget, our healthcare system can get support from individuals,
sponsors… which may advance those conditions. On the other hand, with a view to your
example of the situation patients have to wait in line for long hours, online patient check in is
one of the effective solutions to alleviate the burdens for patient waitings. K hospital in Tân
Triều is a concrete evidence to this circumstance. 

 WEEK 4: BEAUTY CONTESTS ARE HARMFUL

Affirm 1 : Health
As beauty contests and misses become ideal models for women, lots of females lose confidence
and try to perform well in front of others. In order that they can be in a perfect appearance,
women change themselves which physically and mentally affect their health. Loads of them
follow strict diets and spend long hours in the gym to be beautiful, to have slim bodies without
anticipating consequences: eating disorder, even gastralgia.  Additionally, they are always under
pressure of how they look, whether they are beautiful, or even obsessed with it. Regardings Gulf
News- a daily English language newspaper published from Dubai, United Arab Emirates,Dr
Suzy Sobhi- Dean of Studies at Health, Sciences and Safety Institute living in Ras Al Khaimah
shares: “With pageants, there can be a slight negativity around body image because a lot of
contestants might take up drastic diets to try and lose many kilos before the show, which is not a
healthy, sustainable way to reach your ideal body weight”. (Should beauty contests be banned-
2017 December 07)
Refustation:
I’ve got your idea about health. As you mentioned diet and gyming have a negative impact on
women's bodies, I don’t think they are  good arguments as scientical diet and gym planning helps
females keep fit and stay healthy without any adverse effect on both physical and mental health,
they even improve health and make them confident in themselves. Furthermore, looking
beautiful and confident in front of others is an apparent and notorious concern with women as
they become features and factors of women and what women are always looking forward to. 
Miss Khanh Van is an obvious eyewitness of a healthy and inspired miss and it does not fit with
what you have claimed: eating disorders, under pressure, being obsessed with appearance.
Moreover your example might be outdated since it was published in 2017. 

Affirmative 2: Imposition
Beauty contests set false standards about how beautiful women are supposed to look. The
question is, what is beauty? Beautiful by their cultural standards or what? Each participant who
represents their country has been carefully selected, who is both beautiful and talented. So if they
go to compete in the beauty contest when they are eliminated from the competition, it is like
saying that their country is not beautiful. Moreover, In a beauty contest, the contestants' overall
attractiveness is surveyed before a panel of judges, and the women conduct themselves in a way
to please the audience. Candidates must always practice their answering skills carefully. But it's
just practice to score points for the judges as well as the audience, not all from
themselves.Therefore, beauty contests turn women into objects to be used and played with. 

Refusion: I don’t agree with you. You said that Beauty contests set false standards of beauty and
women are used for their entertainment. However Beauty contests not only celebrate beauty, but
also wisdom, morality and talent. The contest is aimed at both honoring beauty while also
seeking beauty with kindness. Although they were trained in the skill of answering questions,
they could not memorize it. The questions are confidential and once it is selected, the candidate
must answer it immediately. they won't have time to edit sentences. so the answers all come from
their thoughts and from their hearts. Therefore, the winners of the pageant are often selected as
ambassadors.  Through their image and actions, they convey to the community meaningful peace
messages.AND the message that the contest wants to convey are messages about the
environment and people, not affecting ethnicity and culture, so it's not as negative as you said.

Negative 1: Valuable opportunities 

It is the fact that beauty contests are platforms which bring about various opportunities for not
only women but also her country. I don’t wanna mention money, since it’s obvious, we  have
other values to care about. Taking part in a beauty pageant has a great impact on girls’
empowerment and confidence, they stepped out of their comfort zones, to show ppl their
appearance, your body, your knowledge and your voice. And these things can not be gained by
money. Okay, take Hennie to be an outstanding example, after 2018 miss universe, she gained
lots of chances and values, she got acceptance for her unique beauty, she got opportunities to
stand in global stage, she got chances to help children, she built libraries, she built home for
them, how can we say beauty contests are harmful from these things ? Or, looking at another
country,  Miss Rwanda, 2019 shared “ It helped me enhance and develop my communication
skills and leadership skill ”. Another evidence from DIDAS Gakire, gender activist , she shared
in The new times 2019 that she believed these pageants have a serious role to play in
empowering women. 
Refutation : I’ve got your idea, you’ve talked about opportunities for women after beauty
pageants , right ? And you mentioned the evidence of Hhneie , Rwanda and didas gakire. But to
me, it’s not convincing. First, talking about didas gakire, a gender activist, is he has knowledge
and experience about beauty contests, even though he is famous, but you can’t tell he has a voice
in this field. Second, you just talk about examples of champions in these countries, but how
about the other ones ? those who don't get any rewards after all, can these opportunities belong to
them ? Or they just waste time, health and money . I even know some people got body shaming
after competition, they are blamed for not being tall enough, not having perfect faces   , not
skillful in English, lots of problems, even when Khanh Van , she still got this. So I believe your
reason and opinion is objective and it does not convince us enough.
Nega 2: Personal development:
Beauty contests, in my opinion, are not detrimental to women if they motivate them to work
harder and achieve more. Many people believe that beauty contest participants are solely judged
by their beauty, but it is not totally true. These competitions often require the girl to show off
their skill, knowledge and talent of the word
When you take part in a beauty contest, you will practice a lot of skills like performance,
ability,...If you want to be a winner, you practice self- confidence day by day. You can speak in
front of  everyone. In addition, they do exercise regularly in order to maintain a perfect body.
Besides, you will become a character-builder. You have many chances to get along with special
bonds, have good relationships with other candidates,...
As a Miss universe Vietnam once said: I am pleased to represent Vietnam worldwide area,
beauty is not enough, you must equip yourself with source of knowledge

Refutation: 
I got your idea, you’ve talked about personal development. It means the participant will have a
chance to improve their skill, confidence and relationship and a Miss Universe not only has
beauty but also talent. I agree to some extent however, it has a lot of black sides such as
following severe weight control plans and spending extended periods of time in the exercise
center to be lovely, to have thin bodies without expecting outcome. Additionally, they are always
under pressure of how they look, whether they are beautiful, or even obsessed with it.

WEEK 5: SHOULD THERE BE A BAN ON CHILDREN PERFORMER?

Affirmative 1 : Pressure : Health problems from overwork and overtrain

Pressure is something that no one can deny when standing on the stage. Even experienced adults
find it difficult to handle performance anxiety. The pressure of a child star comes from lots of
factors. You can not escape from the spotlight to enjoy normal life like other children , you have
to limit eating to keep fit, you have to sit all day in front of the piano or spend all the summer in
a swimming pool to prepare for the next competition. It causes pressure not only on health but
also mental problems. I agree that we can’t restrict talent, but we should decide when to use their
talent to earn money. Take an example of a young star, Arielle Newwman, she suddenly died in
April 2009 at the age of 17  from overdose of methyl salicylate, a drug for reducing muscle aches
and pain. And the question opened : why did she need drugs ? The answer is supposed to come
from teacher pressure to win the competition. Will Smith, a famous film star also shared in
BBC.com, 2010, “ child stars are generally broken by pressure “

Refutation : You’ve talked about pressure on health, and you gave proof of Arielle Newman,
Will Smith statement and Safe kids worldwide. But I do not see a clear point in your view. You
said we need to have a law on the age of children who use their talent to earn money. In the US,
UK, we all have this. As I reported in the UK, under age 16, children are not allowed to work
,and between 17-18, they only have 40 hours a week to work, so if they overwork or overtrain,
it’s their responsibility, the government have taken care of it and there will be no need to have a
ban anymore. And you said, it’s can cause mental and physical health, i think that even if they do
not earn money, studying only still have its own pressure, each choice include pressure and
challenge, so pressure come from many aspects of life, we can not only focus on this field and
say that it is the root of health problems. 

Affirm 2: Responsibility (Ha)

Childhood is a golden time, one of the happiest periods that individuals experience as children
just have to study, discover, and have fun. However, kid stars always have to work: acting,
singing in shows, concerts… and wearing clothes, costumes not appropriate with their ages.
They are given too many responsibilities compared to peers. In other words, they are cheated out
of their youth. We only live once. Thus, allowing children to be at their real age, to enjoy this
period of time is necessary. I am not saying that child stars do not have happy childhoods. I'm
just mentioning and noticing the balance between working and playing among kids. I can set
Phuong My Chi as an example, she entered showbiz when she was a kid, she had to work over
continuing shows, she wore clothes older than her age: you can guess her real age without
looking at her profile.
Refutation:
I’ve got your idea: Responsibility. Yet, I do not have a similar viewpoint with you so I do not
agree with what you have said. You have noticed the balance between working and playing
among kids.I think you and I, all of us that are not in the same boat with those kids, cannot make
sure whether they are spending on working more than playing or not. And even some star kids
work more than play, it is just the minor part or it might be their interests, those kids are into
doing this kind of activity and it's their choice. In addition, I think that you have misunderstood
the case of Phuong My Chi as she has shared that she can balance her studying and singing as
well as what she is wearing is not compulsory, she does a favor in them.

Negative 1: Development of talents

 Ladies and gentlemen, today we are debating on the resolution “ children performers should be a
band ”. My name is Y and I am from the negative team who disagree with this resolution. I have
one main reason: The development of talents.
Children can have openings to work with popular individuals and specialists within the industry,
permitting them to create their gifts and reach their full potential.
Other people may say that If children are working, they are not spending their time on formal
education. However, in the end, formal education is designed for children to prepare for their
adult lives and careers. Working in a profession like acting or training as a footballer may be a
better preparation for some children’s future than school-based learning. Take Emma Waston as
an example, she started acting at an early age and now has a successful career.
Moreover, a lot of countries allow parents to opt to home- school their children even if they have
no teaching qualification. Almost all children performers have well qualified tutors and some of
them go on to achieve high grades in universities
Refutation: 
You’ve talked about the development of talents in early age which helps prepare for  careers later
on. However, you may forget the flip side of it when young performers are victims of labor
abuse, because they have abilities to make money. 
Childhood is a golden time, children have rights to enjoy it, we should not try to force them to
make money and cheat their youth. 
Moreover, working and learning at the same time causes pressure not only on health but also
mental problems

Negative 2: Responsibility
A child gains a sense of responsibility at an early age when pursuing an early career. A child
learns to become a responsible individual as following through with commitments is essential in
a show business career.When acting, You might need a lot of responsibility. Having
responsibility is very important, And you need it for many things. That might be hard for young
children, But that will be a very good chance to learn responsibility. Nowaday, Education is
designed to prepare children for their adult lives and careers. Therefore, being exposed to
performances from a young age makes children aware of their responsibilities. For example,
When the child is an actor, they understand that they have a responsibility for that role to be able
to give the audience the best footage. It is not acceptable to be wishy-washy and change your
mind if something fun comes along that you’d rather do. If you have a job to do, you must be
responsible and complete it. 
Refustation: I got your point that child performers help children have a responsibility. But I
don’t agree with you because The example you give is only based on your own observations and
judgments, and there are no exact sources or data to prove it. I think it's too early to take
responsibility at work for young children. Because they are at the age of eating, playing,
learning. They are living carefree, thoughtless. Children should live up to their age, have fun and
discover what they want. Taking responsibility from a young age will make them feel pressured
and may lose the beautiful childhood. 

WEEK 6: SHOULD GOVERNMENT CONTROL THE INFLUENCES AND THE

REACH OF MEDIA TO THE SOCIETY

Affirmative 1: Quality of information

Ladies and gentlemen, today we are debating on the resolution “Government should control the
media”. My name is Y and I am from the affirmative team who strongly support this resolution. I
have one main reason: The quality of information
Government controls the media, keeping  us from misinformation. It would produce more factual
statements of information than it is provided by media companies today. In modern times, it is all
about selling the news and in this case, the most important stories are often ignored because they
are boring to watch. Having the government control the media 
Especially in covid 19 period, based on The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene ,
researchers say at least 800 people may have died due to misinformation related to COVID-19.
So what if government can't control those kind of misinformation, it will lead to the danger for
all the country 
Refutation:  
Y had talked about Government control media, which helps prevent the spread of
misinformation. I don't agree with her point, what if the government withholds information
against them and 
In North Korea, The government controls information excessively, their freedom of speech is
almost lost especially when they want to mention something about the state policy. The citizens
know little about life outside so they have to obey many unreasonable and harsh laws . That is
the black side of the government controlling the media.

Affirm 2 : Cyberbullying
The fact which no one can deny is that the influence of social media is not only on adults, but
mainly on adolescents and children. These days, these years, Teenagers need to fit in, to be
popular, and to outdo others. This process was challenging long before the advent of social
media. Add Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, and Instagram into the mix, and you suddenly have
teenagers subjected to feeling pressure to grow up too fast in an online world.
The Cyberbullying Institute’s 2019 survey of U.S. middle and high school students found that
over 36 percent report having been cyberbullied at some point in their life, mainly through the
Internet with 30 percent having been victimized twice or more. It also found that almost 15
percent admitted to having cyberbullied someone at least once, and nearly 11 percent admitting
to doing it two or more times. Teenagers can misuse social media platforms to spread rumors,
share videos aimed at destroying reputations, and to blackmail others. ( according to the New
York Times report in 2019 ) .If the government can not restrict this now, there will be more toxic
challenges in the world, lots of children will be affected and we can not predict the results.
Refutation : You’ve talked about cyberbullying and you show the survey of the US is an
example. But I see, it’s not convincing and your point is quite objective. You only took an
example of the US, what about other countries ? Do they face the same issue or do they already
have campaigns and solutions for these problems ? I can not see a clear view about your opinion.
Moreover , you mainly focus on Social Media, but other media like youtube or press , is there
any problems ? Nowaday, we have youtube kids, we have websites to restrict the use of social
media. Adolescents are at the age they can control their actions, and children also need to be
taken care of by their parents. So I believe we can not blame the media or the government, it’s
individual choice and responsibility. 

Negative 1: Rights( Ha)

Freedom of media is one of human rights. All of us have the right to know a variety of
information sources and to express our viewpoints. If the government controls it, it means they
shut human mouths, blind human eyes and of course humans will not be human any more. Can a
society full of robots-without human beings, without residents develop? The answer is NO as all
of us know and understand humans' role in creating a prosperous society. According to Michael
Chertoff, former U.S. secretary of Homeland Security :“Free expression is one of the
foundational elements of the internet,” which indicates how individual expressions are important
in making the internet.

Refutation: 
I’ve got your idea: rights. I agree with you that free media is one of the rights. However, I don't
think that governments managing the media shut human mouths, blind human eyes and make ppl
become robots. Which I mean is you may misunderstand the resolution since government
controls reach of the media might eliminate just fake news and rumours not the updated and
other kind of news. And of course this beneficials us in finding, selecting and processing news.
Regarding your example, despite its ownership I cannot see the source- the context is created,
and when it was published so I cannot make sure whether it is outdated and reliable or not.

Negative 2: Transparency 
It cannot be denied that on the political front, the media also plays a very important role in
making us aware that not only the individual political leaders help us to scrutinize the whole 
government activities. Therefore, If the government controls the media, abusive government
officials will get away with their wrong practices such as abuse of power and corruption. A
government leader, for example, can ban the release of videos and online content proving his or
her illegal activities by imposing news blackouts.. In China, it is very difficult for the public to
know the truth since the media is totally controlled by the government. Thus the media has lost
its ability to supervise the government and turns to be a tool used by the government to control
people's thinking. Or Whether you consider the presidential election in the United States or the
parliamentary election in India, which has been covered so comprehensively by the media that
even before the election, everyone is clearly going to vote for whom. If there is a government
intrusion into the operation of the media, we will be deprived of that information. So, We
shouldn't trust the government too much
Refutation: 
There is no transparency if the government interferes in the mass media and takes China and
other countries as an example. But without government intervention, much bad news would be
spread. The spread of reactionary, defamatory and distorting information about the government
will make people confused. From there, causing the country to be in turmoil, sometimes leading
to confrontation with each other. Therefore, it is necessary to control the media to remove
official information, cause social disorder, and create a healthy information environment for
everyone to access.

WEEK 7 : IS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DANGEROUS TO HUMAN LIFE ?

Affirmative 

Affirmative 1 : Cybersecurity 

Hi ladies and gentlemen , my name is X, and today, our topic of discussion is “...”. We come
from an affirmative team, who agree on the idea “ AI is dangerous to human life “. My first
reason for it is cybersecurity.  Along with the development of AI is the higher chances that cyber
criminals use this technology to develop more advanced and efficient threats + attacks.
According to Gatefy, a famous website for email protection, in 2021, indicated that : “
cybercriminals may use algorithms to understand the pattern of automated emails sent from
Netflix or Apple to develop fake ones that look like the real ones, and AI can even create fake
videos, fake voices and fake profiles. And we can all see that although cyber security laws have
been introduced for a long time, not much has been fixed. Another proof, from “What
happened”, a book of Hillary Clinton, a well-known American politician, who worked a lot on
the problem of cyber security, said “ technologists have warned that AI could one day pose an
existential security threat “

Refutation : I got your idea. You’ve talked about cybersecurity and it’s the reason why
information breaches happened (lộ thông tin). But actually, leaking data has existed for a long
time, even before this enormous development of AI. As can be seen, leaking infor may come
from various reasons  : weak passwords, clicking trash links, giving phone numbers freely on
social media, sending email to the wrong person, it’s all about physical actions, which can not be
blamed for AI. And I suggest that it’s more reasonable if we learn to protect our information
efficiently, learn to backup data and use safer methods. Moreover, it’s also a soluble problem ,
you’ve mentioned that cybersecurity legislation has no positive impacts, but no statistics , no
data or survey were given, so it’s not provincing, and I believe, the government has put more
care on this problem day by day, and it will be soon declined with the geniuses of human brain.
By this refutation, I believe that, compared to its advantages, AI is not harmful to human life.

 Affirmative  2 : Job Losses

The second effect of AI is people’s unemployment. Nowaday, With the advancement of

technology, AI is also evolving day by day. Human work is gradually replaced by AI. The fact
that machines can replace humans that lead to large-scale unemployment, depression, poverty,
and social ills. People are deprived of work, left with empty time. According to Brookings
Institution study in 2019 : 36 million people work in jobs with “high exposure” to automation,
meaning that before long at least 70 percent of their tasks — ranging from retail sales and market
analysis to hospitality and warehouse labor — will be done using AI. If the use of artificial
intelligence becomes widespread, ppl will lose their creativity and become lazy. Furthermore, AI
used for the wrong purposes is dangerous to humanity in general. And It could lead to mass
destruction.

Refutation: I don’t agree totally with your point. You said that AI will replace human works that
make people’s creativity lose. However, the purpose of using AI is to get rid of some tedious and
repetitive work so that people can focus on doing more qualified jobs. Besides, AI can help ppl
minimize errors, reduce pressure. As a result, working capacity will increase

Negative

Negative 1 : Health Care

Ladies and gentlemen , my name is X, and today, our topic of discussion is “...”. We come from
a negative team, who strongly disagree on the idea “ AI is dangerous to human life “.
I have one main reason: Healthcare.
One of AI's biggest potential benefits is to help people stay healthy so they don't need a doctor,
or at least not as often. The use of AI and the Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) in consumer
health applications is already helping people. Technology applications and apps encourage
healthier behaviour in individuals and help with the proactive management of a healthy lifestyle.
It puts consumers in control of health and well-being
Additionally, AI is already being used to detect diseases, such as cancer, more accurately and in
their early stages. According to the American Cancer Society, a high proportion of
mammograms yield false results, leading to 1 in 2 healthy women being told they have cancer.
The use of AI is enabling review and translation of mammograms 30 times faster with 99%
accuracy, reducing the need for unnecessary biopsies.
Refutation:
X has talked about applying AI into the medical industry and using it to improve people's health.
However, you didnt the show the statistics about how AI applications really help users’ health
(such as how many people have better health after they use those kinds of apps) so it is not
convincing.
Moreover those kinds of sophisticated technology are expensive, and they are not for all
countries in the world.

Negative 2: Work efficiency( Ha)

Robots are automatic machines that can ensure 24 hour service availability with the same
performance and consistency all day long. AI takes over repetitive tasks and will not be tired or
bothered. This means the amount of workload burderning on employees decreases but still
ensures, even improves  productivity. Furthermore, AI takes care of managing and processing
datas,  errors created due to data processing mistakes can be minimized and prevented, even with
such small mistakes. AI can also help humans in delicate, complex technical and medical  works
such as operations, surgeons, machine constructions…Regardings a research of Accenture (an
Irish-domiciled multinational company that provides consulting and processing
services):artificial intelligence has the ability to increase productivity by 40% or more. Through
data collection, automation, decision making, and cybersecurity, AI can boost profitability by an
average of 38%. This can help free up valuable time for employees.(2018)

Refutation: You indicated thay AI brings high efficiency at work and gives numbers to prove
that efficiency. However, I don’t agree with you.Because, If we use AI, people are deprived of
work, left with empty time. Moreover, The usoff AI becomes widespread, people will lose their
creativity and become lazy. You also said that Ai can minimize errors. But, If AI makes a
mistake due to a mechanical problem, who will be responsible? We also cannot guarantee that
there will be no errors during the AI work. So we should not depend on AI.

WEEK 8 : IS TOURISM BENEFICIAL TO AN ENVIRONMENT ? SHOULD TOURISM

BE BANNED INORDER TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT ? 
Affirmative 

Affirm 1 :  Preservation
Tourism can significantly contribute to environmental protection, conservation and restoration of
biological diversity and sustainable use of natural resources. Because of their attractiveness,
pristine sites and natural areas are identified as valuable and the need to keep the attraction alive
can lead to creation of national parks and wildlife parks.

For example, according to gdrc.org , In Hawaii, new laws and regulations have been enacted to
preserve the Hawaiian rainforest and to protect native species. The coral reefs around the islands
and the marine life that depend on them for survival are also protected. Hawaii now has become
an international center for research on ecological systems - and the promotion and preservation
of the islands' tourism industry was the main motivation for these actions. Tourism has had a
positive effect on wildlife preservation and protection efforts. Numerous animal and plant
species have already become extinct or may become extinct soon. Many countries have therefore
established wildlife reserves and enacted strict laws protecting the animals that draw nature-
loving tourists. As a result of these measures, several endangered species have begun to thrive
again.
= > should not ban tourism

REFUTATION : I got your team’s idea , you’ve talked about preservation, as I could see, your
evidence did not include the date, I mean it could be a long time ago and your information may
not be valued anymore; therefore, it’s not convincing. And what's the current state of these coral
reefs ? In my opinion, preservation is not a long term advantage of tourism. What will happen if
this Hawaii is no longer a tourism destination? They just take advantage of the beauty of nature
instead of truly wanting to protect and embrace them. Moreover, many natural species are also
negatively affected by irresponsible tourists, it’s not really a way to protect the environment .
Hence, I strongly reject your idea and believe that tourism is not beneficial to the environment 
 

Affirm 2: Environmental awareness(Ha)

Tourism raises people's awareness on how important the environment is to our lives. Many
destinations have promoted ecological and sustainable tourism which shows and educates people
of substantial tourism impacts on the environment.  For instance, Costa Rica's fantastic
ecotourism promotes environmental- friendly activities and resources. We can also set dolphin
dancing in Nha Trang as an example since those watchings raise visitors' knowledge of marine
animals, specifically aquatic mammals like dolphins and back them up in dolphin conservation.
In addition, tourism builds bridges of understanding among cultures.
Refutation:
I’ve got your idea: raising ppl awareness. I agree with you to some extent as you have mentioned
tourism as bridges building understandings among distinguished cultures. However as you have
augmented that tourism positively affect environment through ecological and sustainable
tourism, in my book it is not really true since whenever we want to exploit a destination, to make
it become a famous place we have intervened its nature to some extent and it might disturb and
imbalance the pristine as well as ecological environment there. Furthermore, that tourists relax
and spend their holiday there firmly impacts the nature scene and sources. And of course those
gradual impacts lead to substantially negative influence on the environment before raising the
general public about the importance of the natural environment. 
Negative 1: Air pollution
Transport by air, road, and rail is continuously increasing in response to the rising number
reported that the number of international air passengers worldwide rose from 88 million in 1972
to 344 million in 1994. When a large number of tourists are involved, it invariably leads to a
greater use of the transportation system. We all are aware of the fact that emissions from
automobiles and airplanes are one of the biggest causes of air pollution. When a large number of
tourists use these modes of transport to reach a particular attraction, it pollutes the air both
locally and globally.
Tourism contributes to more than 5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, with
transportation accounting for 90 percent of this.
And by 2030, a 25% increase in CO2-emissions from tourism compared to 2016 is expected.
To sum up, tourism contributed to air pollution => Harm to environment
Refutation: X has talked about travelling contributing to greenhouse gases which damage the
environment, however, she didn't mention the source, whether it comes from a reliable source or
not.                                                     

Negative 2: Loss of biological diversity

Tourism will threaten our food supplies, opportunities for recreation and tourism, and sources of
wood, medicines and energy. Especially in places where trees  are cut down                                  
to build harbours, making water quality much worse. Benthic organisms are destroyed, dirt
created by dredging. The sea and land are poisoned by waste. Moreover, It also destabilizes
ecosystems. Recreational activities in sea areas such as swimming, diving and sport fishing can
affect coral reefs and fisheries. Besides, tourism also reduces rare species by catching and killing
rare animals as souvenirs. Or tourists like to look for rare or exotic animals to observe and take
pictures, which increases the pressure on them. For example, recently, the death of starfish in
Phu Quoc due to being caught ashore to take pictures with tourists is a problem attracting the
attention of many people. According to Earth Buddies, catching starfish ashore is an "extremely
dangerous" action. This paper claims that many people have a misconception that marine life
will still be alive if lifted out of the water. This ignorance has been and is threatening their
lives.Therefore, besides protecting environmental resources, we should have solutions to prevent
incidents like this 

Refustation:
Your point indicated that tourism has an effect on our lives and especially the ecosystem.
However, I don’t agree with you because Tourism activities have created good effects for the
rational use and optimal protection of natural resources and the environment. Today, tourism
enhances the quality of the environment. Tourism can provide initiatives for environmental
cleanup through controlling air, water, soil quality, noise pollution, waste disposal and other
environmental issues through landscape planning programs. design, construction and
maintenance of architectural works. In addition, tourism also helps protect rare and precious
animals, contributes to enriching biodiversity, and enriches ecosystems by adding new plant and
animal species.