Ladies and gentleman,.

, to the chair of this debate Good afternoon, the motion for today’s debate is the actual
location where the first cry of revolution happened, if it is in Balintawak or in Pugadlawin. We stand here today
before you defending that the first cry of revolution really happened in Balintawak. As the leader of opposition,
I first would like to disagree with the governments given definition.
The government said that:

But we believe that Cry/Cry of revolution must be defined as the historical and consequential events sweeping
the Spanish colonies as used by the nineteenth century journalists. Formerly, it could be specifically any actions
and terms of events towards an alliance against the Spaniards. It was a Spanish historian named Manuel Sastron
who institutionalized the phrased for the Philippines. It is the turning point when the Filipinos finally rejected
Spanish colonial dominion over the Philippine Islands, by formally constituting their own national government,
and by investing a set of leaders with authority to initiate and guide the revolution towards the establishment of
sovereign nation. Another one is Balintawak must be define as the

The opposition team also didn’t accept the given parameters as if it was too generalized and comprehensive.
Specific knowledge must be included as the motion requires a precise facts and evidences.

m
er as
Now I will move on to rebut ___ arguments made by the prime minister.

co
eH w
Rebuttal:

o.
Their first argument was: rs e
ou urc
o
aC s

They said that:

vi y re

However, we, opposition team believe that this is a wrong statement.

ed d

We say the:
ar stu
is

As we keep on talking:
Th
sh

Moreover:

Their 2nd argument was:

This study source was downloaded by 100000751631583 from CourseHero.com on 06-26-2021 00:04:57 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/41925057/Balintawakdocx/
 They said that:

Nonetheless, we, opposition team believe that this is a wrong statement.

We say the:

As we keep on talking:

Additionally

Now I’ll go on to present the first argument of the opposition team.

m
Premise 1: Our first argument was from the statement given by Gregorio Masangkay, one of the acknowledge

er as
member of Katipunero and Camara Secreta or the secret chamber of Katipunan, affirmed that Andres Bonifacio

co
already called upon an assembly regarding the said alliance over the Spaniards on the night of August 23 1896

eH w
in Balintawak.
Premise 2: There, the number of Katipuneros attended the assembly agreed and second the motion of Bonifacio

o.
rs e
as he raised and confirmed to them if the decision for starting the revolution is final and concluded..
ou urc
Conclusion: The said meeting called by Bonifacio is the actual beginning of the Cry of Revolution because it is
an occurrence wherein they actually contracted upon to start the actual revolution over the Spaniards. Thus, the
assembly of the Katipuneros conducted in Balintawak is already considered an action of cry of revolution as
related to the given definition and it was the first event happened as their prior movement. Then, it is actually in
o

Balintawak that the first cry of revolution happened and not in Pugad Lawin.
aC s
vi y re

Our second argument was

Premise 1: As from Sofronio Calderon, Pugad Lawin was never an officially documented as a place name on
any Philippine map before Second World War. Pugad Lawin appeared in historiography only from 1928 which
ed d

only mean that it only appeared some 32 years after the events took place.
Premise 2: Nevertheless, Balintawak was always a traditionally location where revolution was held to have
ar stu

occurred. For example,

Conclusion: Therefore, it is not evidently and relatively considering to say that the first cry of revolution
actually happened in Pugad Lawin but rather in Balintawak. You cannot consider something valuable if it is not
is

yet exsiting.
Th

Our third argument was that

sh

This study source was downloaded by 100000751631583 from CourseHero.com on 06-26-2021 00:04:57 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/41925057/Balintawakdocx/
 Rebuttal.
 The “Cry of Pugad Lawin” (August 23, 1896) cannot be accepted as historically accurate. It lacks positive
documentation and supporting evidence from the witness. The testimony of only one eyewitness (Dr. Pio
Valenzuela) is not enough to authenticate and verify a controversial issue in history.
 John N. Schrumacher, S.J, of the Ateneo de Manila University was to comment on Pio Valenzuela’s credibility: I
would certainly give much less credence to all accounts coming from Pio Valezuela, and to the interpretations
Agoncillo got from him verbally, since Valenzuela gave so many versions from the time he surrendered to the
Spanish authorities and made various statements not always compatible with one another up to the time when
as an old man he was interviewed by Agoncillo.
 “Pugad Lawin” was never officially recognized as a place name on any Philippine map before Second World War.
 “Pugad Lawin “appeared in historiography only from 1928, or some 32 years after the events took place.
 the revolution was always traditionally held to have occurred in the area of Balintawak, which was distinct from
Kalookan and Diliman.
 Pugad Lawin” is not historiographically verifiable outside of the statements of Pio Valenzuela in the 1930s and
after. In Philippine Historical Association round-table discussion in February this year, a great granddaughter of
Tandang Sora protested the use of toponym “Pugad Lawin” which, she said, referred to a hawk’s nest on top of a
tall sampaloc tree at Gulod, the highest elevated area near Balintawak. This certainly negates the NHI’s premise
that “Pugad Lawin” is on Seminary Road in Project 8


m
er as
co
eH w
o.
rs e
ou urc
o
aC s
vi y re
ed d
ar stu
is
Th
sh

This study source was downloaded by 100000751631583 from CourseHero.com on 06-26-2021 00:04:57 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/41925057/Balintawakdocx/
 Arguments:
 Pio Valenzuela (friend of Bonifacio) averred that the Katipunan began meeting on 22 August while the Cry took
place on 23 August at Apolonio Samson’s house in Balintawak.
 Guillermo Masangkay, one of the witness of the actual event, that it is actually in Balintawak that the first cry of
revolution happened.
 Autobiography of Gregoria de Jesus, 1928, wife Bonifacio,
 Julia Nakpil, 2nd wife of Bonifacio
 Andress called a meeting for a meeting in Kangkong, Balintawak on August 23
 All of the said location where located in Balintawak, an it its believed that it a strategy of the Filipinos to disjoint
the Americans from their plans oversy.

The recent discoveries and careful examination of contemporary sources of information have considerably added to our
knowledge about the Balintawak events of 1896, making it possible to ascertain the date and venue of the Katipunan
meetings at that time, the shredding of ceduals, the first encounter, and much more. As a result, a clearer picture of
these events has emerged based chiefly upon the recollections of persons who actually witnessed them, and
corroborated by contemporary documents.

Biographical study
Masangkay

m
er as
Valenzuela
Francisco Carreon

co
eH w
Tomas A. Remigio
Vicente Samson

o.
El Comercio account rs e
ou urc
Pintos Telegram
The narratives of Sastron and John Foreman
o

Santiago V. Alvarez – not credible. The circumstances of and date of the “discovery”
aC s

Narrative of sinfroso san pedro

vi y re

Report of Lt. Col. Olegario Diaz

Hearsay

Pio Valenzuela
ed d

Briccio Pantas
ar stu

Cipriano Pacheco

Cartography
is
Th
sh

This study source was downloaded by 100000751631583 from CourseHero.com on 06-26-2021 00:04:57 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/41925057/Balintawakdocx/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)