Coach notes!

(Example case)

1) Coming up with “debate winning” arguments - it is more of a strategy thing; whilst an

argument can make sense, there are often other stronger arguments in a debate that you can
hinge upon to win a round (ie in this case, economic benefit might not necessarily be a debate
winning argument because in the grand scheme of things, economic benefit to the country from
professional athletes is likely to be a muted benefit)

2) Impacting your arguments - good arguments generally speaking are logical and important
(you guys have locked down development of logic links, so you now need to tell me WHY an
argument is important; ie if you wanted to argue about economic benefit - whilst economic
benefit in itself is an a priori/normative good, you might want to tell me why it is important or why
it is MORE important (weigh) than the trade off on your opponents’ paradigm.

3) Other analysis tools you guys can use: Character analysis (how will athletes behave
with/without this concession - it would be very easy to claim that it is a zero sum game for prop’s
world, and similarly opp can claim that athletes will behave in another way without this
concession) it is then impt for you to go beyond assertions and tell me why and how ppl behave
the way you think they will, and characterisation - what do you think prof athletic training look
like, how do military training look like - these can be used to pad your arguments to give them
more depth.

Prop case (example):

- I think what you want to ask yourselves and dive deeper into is “what is the value of sport and
representation at international levels i.e. olympics”, you don't have to frame it as economic
benefit - often times the benefit of sport is intangible and soft, but extremely important as well.
- ⁠you might want to characterize the training for sports events in more depth
- ⁠You also might want to push the angle of exclusivity; to frame this debate as practical and
mitigate any concerns about defense compromise as marginal since only a small number of
individuals will qualify, and also how these individuals are likely to want to desert (ie ben davis)
since sporting is to many of these individuals, their entire life and livelihood.opp case is a bit
harder, because the practical tradeoffs of not having these individuals serve ns is actually quite
small since it is a small number, what you might want to do is blow this up and talk about how it
is a compromise of values and principles

Problem mitigation - prop will claim that the 2 years will greatly impact an athlete's career and
ability to bring national glory
1) The likes of Loh Kean Yew, shows how athletes can still be successful balancing NS with
sports
2) Athletes usually play for SAFSA, which means that there is still sporting development
3) Athletes can take leave to compete at intl sporting events
4) Happy to stand for deferment, as we have for Schooling, Quah Zhen Wen, so that the prime
of an athlete's career is not disrupted.
5) Worst case: maybe even question the impact - females also don't serve NS we even won a
medal, less the imported table tennis teams
6) Ability to compete at the highest level has never been the barometer for exemption. By that
logic, we need to exempt entrepreneurs who have founded companies before they are enlisted,
because they have a significant contribution. But we don't.

Policy:
1) Still have to serve
2) Deferment - just like Medical officers, but they will still have to return to serve
3) Charge those who don't serve (eg. Ben Davis) with desertion. Appropriate criminal penalties
apply

Principle: Why must NS be compulsory, no ifs or buts

Premise 1: Why is NS a duty for all Singaporean men?

Talk about the importance of national defense to SG - our economic prosperity, etc all stems
from that . Crucially, this benefits all Singaporeans universally, in a way that no one can opt out
of. Hence, there is that obligation to serve

Premise 2: Why must it be universal?

"Second, NS must be universal. Simply put, all who are fit to serve must serve. This accords
with fairness. Whether in peace or war time, the morale and the will to defend Singapore would
be severely weakened if some are conscripted but others are not through exemptions or
alternative forms of service.

Third, the equity principle entails equality of treatment of national servicemen in similar
circumstances, regardless of background or status.

NS has strong public acceptance and legitimacy because the principles of universality and
equity are stringently upheld, and NS serves a critical need of national security for a young
nation state."

Promote sports:
1) See all above points
2) Sporting excellence is a means of developing a sense of national unity and national pride.
Ultimately, an olympic medal has no value, if people reject the means of getting the
achievement. Case in point was the 2008/2012 table tennis women's team. We won medals, but
people were not proud of those achievements because those medals were because Singapore
offered China players citizenship to play. The same is with any athlete who ends up winning a
medal through NS. If they win, it is unclear why Singaporeans will feel proud of their
achievement, as NS is seen as a rite of passage for all SGrean men, and they didn't take part in
it.
Worst case: Why is NS more important than sports
1) The benefit from prop is uncertain - winning medals, if its prop's mech, is not a given.
2) Frame - talk about the existential nature of SG's existence - our economy, stability, etc is only
because of our commitment to national defense. Clearly more important than sports
3) Impact is also not so significant - female sports?

Rebuttals wise:
- make sure there is some mitigation against the "just a small number wouldnt make a
difference"
1) it does because the principle of compulsory NS , without regard to personal convenience and
potential contributions. to create exceptions weakens NS
2) it is not just about 2 years of service, but the reservist force as well - Singapore's defense is
built on the fact that every Singaporean son can and will defend.