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?
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
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?
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?
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
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
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
Friday, September 19, 2008
THW sanction Russia for their actions in Georgia
Government Speech
- Principle
- 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?
- Contextualize
- What happened in Russia?
- clearly against principles and threatened security of EU and neighbors
- tie back to principle
- Parallels
- How EU treats others
- Security
- Consistency with EU Principles
- 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
Thursday, September 18, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Swiss-knife Arguments
- International community –
- Image
- Government, people involved
- investment
- Messages
- Sending signals
- Affecting people on the grass roots level
- Negative or positive side effects
- Actors getting to fulfill their responsibility
- Posterity-future repercussions
- Social backlash
- Adapt or perish
- Empowerment (higher feeling of social participation)
- Greater good
- Force/encourage to cooperate
- Snow-ball effect(negative-problem gets bigger)
- Ripple effect(positive- when 1 policy affect another)
- Small issues should not cause us to give up a good policy
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Social Issues
- Government responsibility vs. responsibility of citizens/NGO/private sector
- Individual liberties vs. social benefit
- Clashing rights/values
- Environment vs. development
- Government regulation vs. market method
- Modernization vs. tradition
- Global intervention vs. national sovereignty
- Global identity vs. national diversity
- Multilateral vs. bilateral
- Convenience vs. “greater good”
Basic Arguments
- Counter-productive
- Direct positive impact or benefit or proving end result
- Necessity or urgency (justify policy)
- Comparative analysis
- Cost-benefit approach
- Appeal to profit
- Increase government revenue
- Efficiency and effectivity
- Lack of alternatives
- Moral fibre of the society
- Introducing higher value
- Win-win situation
- Short-run sacrifices vs. long-run gains
- How rewards/punishment mechanisms work (incentive vs. disincentive)
- Raison d’être (purpose of being)
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
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:
|
Will financing strengthen the weak parties?No, because:
|
| Beneficality |
The benefits of this policy are:
|
The policy is detrimental on three levels:
|
| Practicability |
The policy is practicable because:
|
The policy is inpracticable because:
|
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
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 | |
Monday, September 8, 2008
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
Corporeal Punishment
|
| Where: | USA
|
| Arguments: |
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)