THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT THE RISE OF MINIMALISM WILL NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE COUNTRY’S

ECONOMY

Arguments for the proposition:

- Minimalism can lead to reduced consumption, which can decrease demand for goods and services. This
can hurt businesses that rely on consumer spending to drive economic growth.

- Minimalism can also lead to reduced production, as companies may cut back on manufacturing
products that are deemed unnecessary or excessive. This can impact the supply chain and lead to job
losses in certain industries.

- Minimalism can also lead to reduced tax revenue for governments, as there may be fewer sales and less
income to tax.

Arguments against the proposition:

- While minimalism may lead to reduced consumption in some areas, it can also lead to increased
demand for high-quality, sustainable goods and services. This can create new opportunities for
businesses and entrepreneurs.

- Minimalism can also lead to a greater focus on experiences and services, rather than physical goods.
This can create new jobs in areas such as tourism, hospitality, and the arts.

- Minimalism can also lead to reduced waste and a more sustainable use of resources. This can benefit
the environment and lead to long-term economic benefits, such as reduced healthcare costs and
increased productivity.

In conclusion, the impact of minimalism on a country's economy is complex and depends on many
factors. While there may be some short-term negative effects on certain industries, there may also be
long-term benefits for the economy and the environment.
THIS HOUSE WOULD ONLY ACCEPT MEDICAL CERTIFICATE (MCs) ISSUED BY MAINSTREAM MEDICAL
PRACTITIONERS AND NOT ALTERNATIVE ONE

Arguments for the proposition:

- Mainstream medical practitioners, such as doctors and specialists, have undergone extensive medical
training and education. They are licensed and regulated by medical boards, which helps to ensure that
they follow accepted medical practices and standards.

- Mainstream medical practitioners are generally recognized by most employers, insurance providers,
and government agencies. This can make it easier for employees to take medical leave and for employers
to manage employee absences.

- Accepting only MCs from mainstream medical practitioners can help to prevent abuse of medical leave
policies, as these practitioners are more likely to follow established medical guidelines for determining
the need for time off work.

Arguments against the proposition:

- Alternative medical practitioners, such as naturopaths and traditional Chinese medicine practitioners,
may offer different perspectives and treatments that are not available through mainstream medical
practice. For some individuals, these alternative treatments may be more effective in addressing their
health issues.

- Alternative medical practitioners may be more accessible and affordable for some individuals,
particularly those without access to mainstream medical care due to financial or other barriers.

- Exclusively accepting MCs from mainstream medical practitioners can be discriminatory towards
individuals who choose to use alternative health practices. This can create a disadvantage for these
individuals in the workplace and in society more broadly.

In conclusion, the decision to accept only MCs from mainstream medical practitioners or to accept
alternative ones as well depends on a variety of factors, including the specific context and the needs of
individuals and organizations involved. While mainstream medical practitioners may have certain
advantages, it is important to consider the potential benefits of alternative medical practitioners as well
and to ensure that medical leave policies are not discriminatory towards individuals who choose to
access alternative health practices.