Erase memory of convicts when they finish prison

Policy motion
1.Why is this morally right / justified
-why is a morally permissible prisoners have already serve their sufferings for their
mistakes in prison / punishment from the law
-why does the victim or stakeholders deserve the change , morally .
-why does the policy enforcer (e.g. gov )have the responsibility / incentive to do so .
-why is the SQ so urgent and serious

2.Does the motion effectively solve the problem ?

-is the problem serious or important in the first place
-is the motion effectively solve the root cause of the problem
-is this the best (or only) method we have

3.Does the benefits overweight the harm ?

4.end goal is good?

Value motion
1.Can it fulfil its original / inherent value and purpose .
2.How are different stakeholders affected . ( e.g. their mindset and incentives )
3.Is a society / culture with the motion better than a society without the motion . ( do
comparison )
4.Analyse the debate in LAYERs (individual interest ----state interest----structural stability)

OPPOSITION ( in policy debate )

-very important to show stance , which can be
A:The SQ has no problem
-there is no problem
-the problem is not important
-the problem is not urgent
-the problem is already getting better
(one or more )
B:Do counter policy / model
-identify a different root cause of the problem
-show motion is not solving the root
-show how our counter policy work ( ie the burden of proofs )
-prove the counter is mutually exclusive
Principle
A:Deontology --consequence does not matter , the virtual moral is the most important
B:Utilitarianism ---consequence is the most important thing and the majority of the society is
the most important .
C:game theory ---everyone is self interested agents ----therefore the smaller fist listen and
obey the bigger fist (C is base on anarchy )
D:will the motion create / make the problem of discrimination more serious ---because
motion emphasize on separating people into inferior and superior group (Eg ban rural
residents to work in urban )

1st speaker
1. show the problem we are facing .
2. Show what we want to achieve .
3. how we will achieve it
4. list your burden of proof (moral + practical)
5. prove these burdens one by one
6. do comparison between two worlds ( with motion vs without motion )

3rd speaker
1. summarize the entire debate
2. explain why our side argument is the most important contribution in the debate
( prove that , well , we lower house are the ones that actually gives out important
materials that killed the other side / that support the case the most )
3. wip are allowed to make further analyse , but not giving out completely new
arguments
4. Usually do clashes , ie do a summary that distort the case such that ppl thinks we are
the best
5. you can do clashes in either step 1 or 2

rebuttals
CONSIDER ON
1. morally permissible ?
2. impacts / effects on stakeholders
3. feasibility and practicality
4. spot out assumption or statement they made without proofing
5. EVEN IF ( sometimes say like , now ladies and gentlemen , even if all these above
things are untrue , this points still falls becoz……)