THW ban the patenting of genes

PSDC Round 5

OG Pisay
OO Poveda
CG AA
CO Poveda

Setup:
US, ban all gene sequences

Arguements:
1. against principle of patenting; sequences can occur naturally by evolution
2. necessity; credibility of scientist could decrease if sequence was found naturally
3. patenting will hinder gene research; which is essential for cures for cancer etc.

Ranking

1st OG Pisay
2nd CG AA
3rd OO Poveda
4th CO Poveda

TH would celebrate Disney princesses

PSDC Round 4

OG Ateneo de Naga/Davao/Zamboanga
OO Pilar
CG British School of Manila
CO Pisay

Extension
1. Stunts the role of motherhood: happily ever after ends with marrige, forgets about motherhood
2. Outside vices are more followed by young girls than inner virtues

Possible arguments
3. All Disney princesses have a man (Do we really need one?)

Ranking
1st CO Pisay
2nd OG Ateneo de something
3rd Pilar
4th BSM

TH supports the African Union's clamour for the withdraw of the charges places by the international criminal court on Al-Bashir the president of Sudan

PSDC Round 3

OG Miriam
OO AA
CG Letran(?)
CO Pisay

Extension

1. Principle of the Justice System: a seperate body decides on what the accused gets
2. Responsibility to protect(AU)

Ranking

1st CO Pisay
2nd OO AA
3rd CG Letran?
4th OG Miriam

THW ratify a new Kyoto Protocol

PSDC Round 2

OG CSA
OO ICA
CG Pisay
CO Miriam

def challenge; we lost

Rank

1st OO ICA
2nd CO Miriam
3rd OG CSA
4th CG Pisay

THBT children are raised better in rural communities than in urban area

PSDC Round 1
OG St. Scholastica
OO Poveda
CG Pisay
CO Xaiver

Extension

1. Physical development more important in childhood as it is hindered in urban areas
2. Innovative thinking increases due to lack of resources.

Was not able to say due to lack of time
3. Independence from freer hand by parents in safer area

Possible arguement
4. Urban Poor; only 10-15% of urban population have nice lifestyles

Rank
1st CO Xaiver
2nd OO Poveda
3rd CG Pisay
4th OG St. Scho

What to do with a squirreled defenition

1. Say that they were wrong. Say that it's a squirrel. Show how there defenition makes it no longer debateable. Force the right defenition on them.


2. Attack their paradigm. Arguments must still be fighting for different things.
   

Financial Crisis

Lecture by Maam Shella Paz

WHY?
Overproduction
production of goods > capability of consumers to consume

Timeline:

1. 20's -30's Great Depression


2. 70's Overproduction


3. 80's Saturation Point


4. 90's Technological Boom


5. 2008 Bail-out

THW remove discriminatory practices on ex-convicts

Member of Government Elevation

Discriminatory practice we want removed:Ex-convicts who have a hard time getting jobs and are always at risk of losing their jobs.

Issue 1, principle: equality and belief in the penal system vs. self-preservation
Issue 2, system of judgement: meritocracy vs. opposite of "benefit of the doubt"

1. Discriminatory practices hinder correctional process



Life outside jail is still a part of the correctional process (ex. parole). Ex-convict is put among people who put themselves above him as they are not ex-convicts(pressure), compared to jail where most are equally bad and some even worse than he. Discrimination can be a living hell for ex-convict. Ex-convict can break and turn back to life of crime.




2. Those around the ex-convict (family, society) suffer as well



Many crimes are done out of desperation, caused by poverty. People are not inately evil. Family around ex-convict will suffer due to lack of a stable and sufficient job. Society will lose a number of able workforce. Family members or loved ones may fall into crime as well. There is a cycle of crime and punishment. Removing discrimination ends cycle.

THW pass the reproductive health bill asap

Opposition Argument

1. Pathway for Corruption



Corruption is rampant in the Philippines. With the money passing though so many people, there are too many pathways for corruption. We cannot afford to have another source of corruption.



2. Encourages Promiscuity



What the rh bill is looking like to most filipinos is a pro-condom bill. People will see it as such and think that condoms are the best solution for unwanted pregnancies, which it isn't.



3. Looks down on life



[Pro-life stance] Makes life or pregnancy seem like a bad thing, a disease.



4. There is no need to control the population



Overpopulation is not that big of a problem in the Philippines. Cheap labor is good for our country. We don't want an aging workforce.

PSDC

Philippine Schools Debate Championship

Team A

• Mike Serquina


• Cat Angangco

Team B

• Niboe Herrera


• Romeo Managu

THBT executives of bankrupt companies should have the right to claim severance payments and bonuses

Opposition Argument

1. Have fault in bankrupcy of company


2. Contracts can be considered void


3. Incentive to revive the company is greatly less


4. Recent performance is more significant to past performance

THBT high school debaters alienate rather than educate their peers

Government Argument

1. Their intrinsic characteristics clash




• debaters:multitrack, thinks of pros and cons


• ave. hs student:one-sided, does what's assigned as told to him




2. tight training schedules bond the team, become exclusive


3. debate can be an elitist sport


4. parallels high school discrimination

THW lift age-based restrictions on content

Content:violent movies

Government Argument
Violence in already everywhere, shown in media, in news.
Reasons behind restrictions are no longer applicable today.

Member opening line

Looking at the opening half of this debate, there is a deadlock
As both side clash on (insert debate issue), nothing has been resolved.
This is where I come in and break that deadlock.

More Issues

Religious symbols
Religious tolerance vs. Education

Prisons
Justice vs. Life and Death

Anorexia
Gov't intervention vs. human rights

Sanctioning
Humanitarian vs. Sovereignity

THW will allow prisoners in life-imprisonment to choose the death penalty

Arguments
Goverment
It's like being buried alive

Opposition
Justice
Justice is about the court deciding for the accused, the accused doesn't judge
Where is the justice in that?
Justice is giving what's due to you
It's not about the prisoner choosing
Removal of rights have purposes

Case-building

THW abolish the CDF funds
Government	Opposition
Corruption people don't get the funds more honest officials will be swayed into corruption more regulated checks and balances law makers incentivised to be more focused due to pressure instead of instant money, reason more money must be checked before given	money is all with a single office some towns are almost totally dependant on it more efficient use of the money with close proximity

THW legalize euthanasia
Government	Opposition
It is inhumane to allow one to suffer til the end Money may be used for more pressing needs	person may survive may lead to underground euthanasia no standard no regulation

THBT the reproductive health bill should be passed
Government	Opposition
preventing overpopulation people believe that with more child, more labor may be done with that, the burden of life is also shared, and the quality of living is low lower abortion rate less people, less abortions	impractical encourages promiscuity won't be followed due to unpopularity

THW ban the display of religious symbols
Government	Opposition
against some's religion students are all people, easier to work together no schools of a certain religion	incolcation a culture of cohabilitation teachings will not be carried on outside school, schoolmates will be seen as the exception religions will be hidden

THW evict all urban squatters
Government	Opposition
illegal trespassing defending land owners metro will be cleaned up reduced crime rate due to lower density	they have nowhere else to go no cheap labor removal of white collar laborers

THW lift term limits of elected officials
Government	Opposition
more experienced officials good leaders stay in office, while bad ones won't be reelected seen-through projects	popular presidents aren't always good presidents incubent always gets reelected "better the evil already known, than the good not known"

THW go on an all out war with Mindanao
Government	Opposition
to show they mean business not a trifling matter enlisting support of average citizens peace talks are merely delaying tactics	NPA will know that they are recognized as a threat they will be given an identity AFP is not capable of proper warfare citizens of Mindanao

THBT the UN should impose a trade embargo on China til it shapes up
Government	Opposition
China has slipped up too many times They need a direct message to stop cutting corners They will be better quality products	World wil crumble without China "Who's economy will crumble first, China's or the worlds?" No products, no consumers

Gun Control

Main Arguments for Anti-Gun

1. Guns empower people

Guns make people feel more powerful. Then make people feel that they are somewhat invincible, and that they can do things they can't normally do. This is dangerous especially amongst gangs, people with mental disorders and those who are at the brink of being a criminal. There are people who aren't dangerous yet. With a gun, the possibility of them becoming dangerous to others increases.

2. Without guns, there are no gun accidents

Yes, there are things that cause more accidents that are a part of our daily lives. Cars cause accidents. Knives cause accidents. No one will want to ban cars or knives. But you can control guns. Guns have many accidents as well. You remove the guns, you remove the accidents. Even if there are a hundred million accidents from knives and a only a million from guns, what's better? A hundred and one million accidents? or only a hundred million accidents?

Argument for scrapping the CDF

Government
Not scrapping it would be encouraging the unlawful use of pork barrel

Issue- Considering that there is corruption with the pork barrel, would the masses be better off without the CDF?

Premise- There are corrupt legislators, and even though the percentage of those who are corrupt aren’t clear, the fact that they exist is already enough of a reason to scrap the pork barrel.

Why? The number of corrupt legislators will increase

Why? It will be evident to the non-corrupt legislators that the corrupt ones are getting away with it

How? The corrupt ones are hiding under the justification that some municipalities are almost solely dependant on their CDF allocation. While the people continue to believe that that fact is reason enough to keep the pork barrel, the corrupt ones rejoice.

So what? The non-corrupt may start using some of the funds for themselves,

Why? Legislators are not corrupt because they are evil. They are corrupt because of the strong culture of corruption. To many government officials, it’s be corrupt or starve. It is incredible difficult to not use the money given, especially when one is still lacking basic necessities. And it is incredibly easy to take some of the money especially when you know you can get away with it.

I’m not defending corruption. I’m merely emphasizing that for an honest official, it’s a frustration to see a corrupt legislator get the same CDF allocation, while the honest one is suffering.

So what? For the non-corrupt, they will start out small. They would justify it by saying; it’s not as much as official A. Next, It’s not as much as legislator B. Then, It’s not as much as Senator C. Soon enough that official would just be as corrupt as the next.

That doesn’t mean that it’s not wrong. Therefore, this thinking should be eliminated. Scrapping pork barrel would do that. Keeping it would be allowing the corrupt officials to walk and encouraging others to fall into corruption as well. There will come a point in time when it is clear that the majority of the legislators are corrupt and that single justification that a municipality or two solely rely on pork barrel, that justification will no longer fly.

So now, ladies and gentlemen, we ask: are you going to wait for that point in time, when it is clear that corruption is abundant and the people are half-jobless and half-homeless? Or will you act now, and end the corruption existing with the CDF before it grows?

Guidelines for Matter Briefs

1. Keep them short and easy to read.
2. Compose with a prepping team in mind - include parallel examples, or similar historical instances that can be used to thicken analysis, or perhaps examples of helpful frames to be used
3. Don't forget the basics, but also don't focus on the basics. This is especially true for those who are updating older matter briefs, or are dealing with big issues that people are likely to have a general idea about already.
4. Unleash an armada of arguments & matter weapons that can be handily blasted against the opposing teams and reduce them to ashes.



A: What's Wrong with the United States

The Financial Crisis - Why it's happening, What/Who it's affecting, What to do about it, Conflicting economic views and their defense

The US Elections - Campaign techniques, Sticking issues & states to win, Support-demographic s, Stands on major issues

B: What's Wrong with Europe

Russia, Georgia, and the Satellites - What's happened post-ceasefire, What is the standing of Abkhazia&S.Ossetia (has anyone recognized them besides Russia?), regional tension and how it has manifested itself NATO and the Security of Western Europe

C: What's Wrong with the Philippines

Mindanao - MILF, expanded ARMM/the BJE, recent government and rebel movement, displaced citizens

Bribery and the Justice System - What's happened? Who were the whistleblowers, what did they whistleblow, involvement of major family clans (Lopez-owned Meralco?), and the gravity of the cases in contention

D: What's Wrong with the Rest of Asia
Reworking the Subcontinent: The spread of terror through Pakistan and India, Actions against this, Relations between the two countries
Where next for China: What issues came up during & post-Olympics, lessons learned, etc.

E: What's Wrong with Africa
Effective Power-sharing - What's happened with Zimbabwe and Kenya, what are the successes/failures of this system, effects on the region&continent
International Intervention - Has the effectiveness of Western pressure diminished? Where still is involvement necessary and where is it existing - (French peace keepers in Algeria? etc?)

F: What's Wrong (or Right!) in Medicine
The balance between patients, doctors, and the state - right of patient to deny medical treatment (where exists, applies to which procedures, how about DNR and euthanasia?) , right of doctor to refuse to perform certain treatments (where exists, what contexts, where overturned), when have states intervened?
Property Rights and Medicine - the rise of generics, ex. Cheaper Med. Bill, states disregarding IPR for medicine - in what contexts, what consequences would they be expected to pay, etc.



Special thanks to Gica Mangahas:P

THW sanction Russia for their actions in Georgia

Government Speech

1. Principle




1. Sanctions




• What for?




• punishments to prevent future indiscretions and assert principles of sanctioned body


• political stability


• Russia backing down from its violent undiplomatic stance





• Achieve what?


• Standards for achievement?





2. Contextualize




• What happened in Russia?


• clearly against principles and threatened security of EU and neighbors


• tie back to principle




3. Parallels




• How EU treats others


• Security





4. Consistency with EU Principles




2. Practicality




• Russia's economic power has declined, market of West


• Russia can't afford to piss the EU


• Russia will back down, economic stability is still its number 1 priority


• EU can afford to lose Russia, parallel to other situations where sanctions have worked

THW cut operating hours of all private-commercial institutions

General Comments:

1) Issue:

You have to know the issue of the debate so that your arguments are spot on with the motion. It is also so that there can be a clear clash among teams and it will help you come up with arguments.

Tip for getting the issue: Think of the actors involved. You can come up with 5-6 if you really think about it. From there, think about how each actor will generally be affected by the motion. Then you can now ask: What is the issue of the debate? Why is this being debated upon? What values are being contended? When you have the answer to that, know which value to fight for, and then make your arguments fight for that.

2) Argument Analysis:

Arguments should always be very in-depth. It is never enough that you say the ideas in a single sentence or even two. And expounding on the exact same sentence won’t do much good I’m afraid. You have the statement. You explain the statement. You support it with examples, then you tie it back to the motion. When you end an argument you DON’T want the adjudicator to think “ Well yes, that’s true because……….and that will support their side because……” You DON’T want that. What you want them to think after an argument is “Yes, that’s true and that will support their side.” Do the thinking for them, all of it!

Tip for having more in-depth arguments: When you have your argument ask yourself these three questions: why? how? and so what?. First start with the why your argument is so, then when you have the answer to that, ask why is that so? Or how is that so? Or so what if that is so? Then when you have the answer to that, ask those questions again. If you can keep coming up with another question and answer, write it down. Chances will be high that that is what the adjudicator will be looking for. Keep repeating that cycle until you can no longer question your answers. When that happens, you will have a thoroughly fleshed out argument.

3) Time

Most of you ended way before 7 minutes. Some of you even ended at 4 minutes. This is not good as in most competitions; you will not be allowed to sit until the 6 minute clap. The reason why most if you ended early is that your arguments were single statements, or single statements that were repeated in different ways. You need in-depth analysis to really produce a 7 minute speech with 2-3 arguments. So ideally, you START wrapping up at 6 minutes, at 7, you conclude, then you end at 7:15. Some people may have different ideal times, but since you were all under time, that’s a safe time to try to reach.

Tips for reaching 7 minutes: 1) Argue for the argument. “So why have what I’ve been telling you important? It’s because…” DO NOT repeat your arguments. DO fight for why it will improve your case or why it defeats what opposition has come up with. 2) Time your speech on paper. While in prep, try to divide your speech into 7 minutes already. Give _ minute/s to your rebuttals, _ minute/s to argument A, _ minute/s to argument B, etc. That way you know what to keep brief or what to expound on. You can bring a timer with you when you speak.

Swiss-knife Arguments

1. International community –




• Image


• Government, people involved




• investment






2. Messages




• Sending signals




3. Affecting people on the grass roots level


4. Negative or positive side effects


5. Actors getting to fulfill their responsibility


6. Posterity-future repercussions


7. Social backlash


8. Adapt or perish


9. Empowerment (higher feeling of social participation)


10. Greater good


11. Force/encourage to cooperate


12. Snow-ball effect(negative-problem gets bigger)


13. Ripple effect(positive- when 1 policy affect another)


14. Small issues should not cause us to give up a good policy

Social Issues

1. Government responsibility vs. responsibility of citizens/NGO/private sector


2. Individual liberties vs. social benefit


3. Clashing rights/values


4. Environment vs. development


5. Government regulation vs. market method


6. Modernization vs. tradition


7. Global intervention vs. national sovereignty


8. Global identity vs. national diversity


9. Multilateral vs. bilateral


10. Convenience vs. “greater good”

Basic Arguments

1. Counter-productive


2. Direct positive impact or benefit or proving end result




• Necessity or urgency (justify policy)




3. Comparative analysis


4. Cost-benefit approach




• Appeal to profit


• Increase government revenue




5. Efficiency and effectivity


6. Lack of alternatives


7. Moral fibre of the society




• Introducing higher value




8. Win-win situation


9. Short-run sacrifices vs. long-run gains


10. How rewards/punishment mechanisms work (incentive vs. disincentive)


11. Raison d’être (purpose of being)

Let It Be Resolved That: The Government Should Subsidize Political Parties To Strengthen the Party System

Square Off:The CVC Law Debates

	Affirmative/DLSU	Negative/St. Louies
Necessity	Ira Pozon	Analyn Avila
Beneficality	Mary Lim	Kris Cayabyab
Practicability	Michael Galarosa	Yasmine Tadeo

	Affirmative/DLSU	Negative/St. Louies
Necessity	This motion will: democritizes the party system, allowing all eligible candidates to campaign minimize corruption, how candidates with connections have more funds enable the party system to mature into a legitimate force In status quo, elections are wealth driven and are a popularity contest. The policy will allow the parties to concentrate on their platforms than on their popularity.	Will financing strengthen the weak parties?No, because: there is no sufficient public trust parties will not learn how to spend responsibly
Beneficality	The benefits of this policy are: the removal of barriers during elections, like money and what follows the emergence of more choices for elections he reduction of quotas in spending for campaigning The reduction of overdependence on private contributions which comes with heavy strings attached the ability of parties to focus on more important things like platforms, instead of just getting their name heard the emergence of a merit-based election instead of a personality-based election	The policy is detrimental on three levels: political parties- coming from our government,speaking realistically, funds would be insufficient and a second source of funds would still be required public- the government will be empowered to distribute funds eradically, the publicdo not even choose who parties would be eligible for candidacy and funding corruption-the funds can be corrupted, and there can still be voluntary contributions
Practicability	The policy is practicable because: there is no provision against it in the constitution there are various modes of getting funds without affecting public services it is a progressive step towards reform	The policy is inpracticable because: how each party will be funded is questionable there are more important issues that need our funding, and as a country with debt, the public cannot afford to spend on an issue that does not contribute to society as much as the healthcare problem or the educational problem.

This House Believes That School Should Not Have Homework

	Government	Opposition
1st Speaker	TJ Mora	Naomi Rodriguez
2nd Speaker	Jason Olais	Keziah Tan
3rd Speaker	Williard Jose	Bianchi Dy
4th Speaker	Nico Reyes	Mela Suarez
Facilitator	Cat Angangco

This House Believes That Schools Should Be Allowed To Use Corporeal Punishment

	Government	Opposition
Prime Minister/Leader of the Opposition	Mike Serquinia	Niboe
Deputy PM/Deputy LO	Romeo Managu	Titus Villianueva
Whips	Cat Angangco	Lance Yap
Ajudicator	Gica Mangahas, A.D.S.

Goverment Prep
Issue:	What do we do about liberal students?
Definitions:	Schools Private Secondary Disciplinarian With appropriate medical facilities Corporeal Punishment force used under easonable circumstances will benefit the child ex. 3-mile run non-violent
Where:	USA has the funds has the medical resources liberal atmosphere
Arguments:	Principle: Physical stimulus is more effective Necessity: Parents need extra enforcement to discipline children Effectivity: Secondary schools can have regulated punishment Beneficiality: Children will get a diploma, discipline, and fitness Responsibility: The youth is our future