Government’s third speaker - Nathan

One main reason why opp already loses this debate. First, their setup explains how these still can
access attorney. The moment they cannot answer, they still get assets public officials etc. However,
their second argument that disenfranchised people cannot access attorney their case dies because if
they want to run with their mechanism, they cannot run their second argument but if they want their
second argument to run they cannot run on their mechanism. They have no benefit at all. But i have 2
independent rebuttals before i go to my case. Firstly, on how they say you know in their site it’s
exclusive, i know you can get information. This is not exclusive at all because i think when we’re
talking about information exactly the reason why a decision is not made yet is because they’re still
doubt in which one is right or wrong. We say on our side there will still be suspects, there will see the
force of gathering information. But even if side opp can rebut this, we think that the basis of court in
itself isn’t to simply prove whether someone is guilty or not, but to extent of how many punishments
of jail. For example, the year of punishment there are still force of gathering information. But
secondly, they assume their best case scenario, (oh i’m sorry) sexual assault. So notice when we’re
talking about sexual assault, the reason why they go on court in the first place exactly because they
have guts in the first place to go on court which is not exclusive at all. They just playing in their best.
But certainly it’s another assertation. Informations are strong when we were talking about information
are a strong evidence. This is two things here. Firstly, they explain that if you worry that you cannot
obtain strong evidence, people will still can provide into info about attorney. NO. Notice when we’re
talking about all actors and we’re not we’re talking about not all privileges in people have attorney
university. But secondly, exactly when we’re talking about evidence are needed, exactly when we’re
talking about the body camps are not enough evidence therefore we need other evidence such as
individuals, we say that they cannot run from this. The second thing to do is that there can be second
on it doesn’t necessarily could be strong evidence that could the suspect could perhaps not be honest
in all that they cannot assume that the evidence consists evidence and not violate the privacy. Two
reasons here, firstly there is still a possibility that they can give beyond reasonable doubt exactly not
answering opp only gives an assertion that there’s a possibility that it’s not important. However they
never explain the likeliness of it not be important which that we shouldn’t explain because that’s their
burden, because it’s their case. But secondly, exactly that it’s not important in the first thing right?
why should they not plan it first? But what i’m going to break this debate is two things. Firstly why
privacy is less important but secondly why then we’ll get the better cjs so why privacy is less
important. So basically, notice that all their principles only contingent upon one principle privacy
matters. I will break this down. Firstly, they explain that which it can obtain information more on how
it’s the agency of human being, it could be their property for example. Five reasons why this is untrue
or what’s suggestive. Firstly, we already questioned the likeliness of it how most likely a jury won’t
ask anything outside the crowd. But secondly, even if they do it’s totally fine because these involves
can simply ask “why do you ask that?’ what is the relation between your question and the crime? That
is question to really specify for example. the relation is this i think that’s true so then they can clarify
the answer without giving this privacy. We said totally possible what we do not want assuming for this
individual to stay silent exactly because it proposes a characteristic that they are doing something that
is weird. But thirdly, we explain that the importance of this is to the extent how it can change a judge
decision in itself, therefore it’s not justified. But even if it means privacy being breached we already
explain why it’s justified there’s no reply from this. What do we explain? Firstly, we explain that these
intervals already consent of being on quarter first place the moment they are already on for the
consent on how they pledge all the flesh, more religion and among all countries, they will do their best
to give justice. but secondly exactly how matt just explained that the potential heart heart outweighs,
the potential benefit another privacy doesn’t outweighs the potential criminals. But perhaps you know
a side opp to simply rebuttalizing why is it not likely for invoice in itself for invoice to not answer a
question simply. Because of privacy because the alternative is that sure privacy is being reached, but
the comparative is someone that they care so much who wants to jail and losing their life, i don’t think
that a logical person will simply do this in the first place. But second thing but then what do we bring
which is unrebutted and we talk about a few things. Firstly explain that prevent the judgment from
having just result. If it's not like to happen they will not actually definitely face but most likely the
questions are important of the bop. But the question then becomes “why silence in itself is so
harmful”. Two reasons why. Firstly, it’s give a proposed the ma… (idk bcoz putus-putus) of jury gives
a decision. But secondly, even it doesn’t impose a wrong decision, it goes impose and it can boost a
wrong sentence or for example X kill five person. But in the court, it says person X kills one person.
But secondly, it’s exactly because you give access to it on how you give access to documents in your
first place. But secondly, is that we argue even if it’s not related in the first place is the argue that
privacy and in court is less important then we said this is the tipping point and in this. But then what
does that do principle again? First, you explain that something is justified to you but it doesn’t harm
anyone. We explained to you that the extent of this is harming an improved life on how realistically in
your world only have 70 years of life for example and disarms for example 10 or 20 years of life it’s
not justified because it’s harmed. But secondly, it’s not exactly it’s the moral obligation for
individuals. This is the expansion that i will give there’s no reply. We explaining to you that it’s a part
of public utility, for example the government have good transportation, compensation, how we can
create a much justifiable CGS exactly because it’s compensation from these integrals to simply
impose the burden to impose the burden on card we win this. But second question is why we get better
CGS? The main argument from opp is that affectivity how it prevents mismatch. Not all people
literally can have private attorneys, public attorneys are opposed private artists are bad. Few reasons
here guys like seriously i think government is clear from first but this frame that most likely like soft
incriminations is used for something that is harmful how rich people simply pay witnesses. They
never rebut this too late in women. But even if they do rebut, we don’t mind it because when we are
talking about immigrants from minority group that literally are accused by companies obviously they
won’t stay sad in the first place. Obviously what they will do is literally tell all the truth and not stay
silence. I don’t get the likelihood why they will protect these minorities. But even if we’re talking
about no accessibility private attorney, what makes our side win is there’s then a check and balance
system from society to make public attorney better quality. The likeliness of this that most likely
disenfranchise peoples receive empathy from the public. The problem of life of good attorney will be
highlighted in our side. We win this splash. But secondly, let’s just preempt what perhaps you would
say there perhaps we’ll say that exactly there’s no exactly how there’s strong evidence you don’t need
to say like in the first place because the judge already presumed that it’s something good. NO. your
judge is unable to do that, and court judge should only count something that is what is directly told in
evidence. it’s not only that the principal judge can count that but in reality, MUSA (saya gatau apa ini)
isn’t directly based on strong evidence. Meaning a possibility of person excel their children will be
like “so what is the more impact that we tell you?” Firstly, we explain that it enables individuals to
think twice for the people that want to bribe competitive. It’s so easy and serious so you can still
change the decision. Secondly, it incentivizes the CJN has presumably increased the security that they
have on witnesses and suspect 30 and there will be a lasting narrative CGN unemployed, 14 their
scandals are not will be more afraid for example, and life. And last but not least, it will reduce how
them lead a justice …..