Debate Term 3
Debate Term 3
Debate Term 3
Affirm 1: Quality
As exams are mainly based on what students can remember from their lessons, they just have to
learn by heart all of the information their teacher taught to obtain high scores without critical
thinking and imagination to get an insight into the lessons. Hence, students that may be excellent
at critical thinking but not really good at memorizing things cannot. In addition, those tests can
check certain kinds of skills such as writing and memorizing. These means that what they have
done in exams is only their superficial knowledge and cannot reflect skills they obtained during
courses/ semesters. In addition, due to this traditional evaluation, fraud has been common in
exams. We can set the 2018 national examination as an example: scores of 44 candidates were
illegally corrected in which most of their parents are the authorities of Hoa Binh province. This
indicates that authorities abused their positions, power and this unfairness with other
contestants.
Our team has proposed 2 reasons to support our viewpoints: creativity limitation and quality...
Refutation:
I’ve got your idea. As your reason is quality I agree with your viewpoint to some extent.
However, as you have mentioned the exam fraud in Son La- Hoa Binh in 2018 as an example, I
think it is not suited to our condition at the time being. Which I mean is what you have provided
is outdated since our government punished all of whom committed a mistake. Furthermore, our
machinery has positively changed in the way of working as well as ensuring and remaining an
accurate and transparent evaluation in recent years. The results of national examinations since
2019 have been concrete evidence. Additionally, exam fraud you mentioned previously is just a
fly in the ointment besides numerous achievements.
Refutation :
+) no data show that exam decreases the creativity
+) 2015 is so far in the past, education has changed a lot
+) In covid, we have lots of methods replacing writing paper but it seems like students are still
not involve in these methods
Negative 1: Quality
Thank you ladies and gentlemens, today we are debating the resolution “Should examinations be
replaced” . My name is Y and I am from the negative team, who disagree with this resolution. I
have one main reason: “Quality”.
Exams at the end of the year are given so the teachers can understand if the students understood
the materials throughout the school year. Depending on how the students do on the exam, tell the
teachers what the students did or did not learn. What the teachers put on the exams is the
material that the students should know and that may give them the advantage of getting a good
score. If the teachers give the students a different assessment that doesn't include all the
information they should know, that won't really give the teachers the progress of the student.
Moreover, the quality of exams have been proven for a long time. If we put in a new practice
,who can make sure that the new type of assessment will be more effective or not?
Refutation:
Y has talked about the quality of examinations which has been proven and used for a long time.
You said that the teacher will know about what students have tiếp thu, through examination.
I don't agree with you. Take the national enhanced exam as an example, we all know that
nowadays, this test uses multiple choice questions. Whether teachers really know what students
learned when they sometimes choose the correct answers luckily.
Moreover, you didn't give any statistics about how effective the examination is so your point of
view is not convincing.
Vì vậy exams chưa chắc đã phải cách tối ưu nhất để đánh giá học sinh.
Refutation:
You said that changing exam format leads to mental effects. Students are under more pressure because of
the new exam format and then you give an example to prove it. However, Your example doesn't have
specific sources.According to British education newspaper, it indicated that At present many schools,
colleges, and universities assess their students by means of final examinations. These can be very
stressful and the majority of students usually do worse in normal exams compared to in other
forms of assessment. Exams cannot measure a student's ability to the fullest. Maybe on the most
important exam they didn't do well for some reason. But there will be other assessment methods
that will help them get their scores back. That will reduce the pressure on students. Help them
learn and accumulate knowledge in the right sense.
Affirmative 1: Quality
Ladies and gentlemen, today we are debating on the resolution “Selective schools are better for
children”. My name is Y and I am from the affirmative team who strongly support this
resolution. I have one main reason: The quality
In comprehensive schools, teachers would be absorbed in helping children get lower scores.
Therefore, attending a selective school, students will explore their full potential. When they are
grouped with high achievers who share similar interests and motivation, they will be given
chances to learn more. Moreover, the lessons are harder and the classmates are smarter, which
provides a stimulating environment.
According to Information Technology Department, in top 200 high schools having highest
average score in university entrance exam, there 50 selective high schools on top of the list
Refution:
I got your idea, you've talked about gifted schools having high quality in teaching and they also
give children a better environment than mainstream schools.
However, everything has two sides and this case is not exceptional. Learning in selective schools
requires students to learn a large amount of knowledge. As a result the pressure on students will
be much more.
Secondly, in the statistic you give do not having specific time, so we don't know whether it is
updated or not
Refutation : Hi my name is X, I come from…. I’ve got your idea, you talked about social
comparison, you said that it’s good for children to have a mindset of comparing themselves to
others. But since I’ve got your opinion, it seems like comparison comes from the education
method of their parents, since you mentioned “ parents aim to send their children to selective
schools because it’s better “, so actually, we cannot blame the school, it’s just a neutral objective.
Moreover, you did not mention sth about data or statistics for your opinion. I wonder if it's just
your own view or being surveyed, so it’s definitely not convincing.
Negative 2: UNFAIRNESS.
It Is very unfair and unjust students that go to a selective school are most likely to be chosen for
jobs over those who didn't go to a selective school regardless of who is brighter. How is this fair?
Shouldn't all students be given the same opportunities in life? Also students are regarded as
smart and are regarded higher in life. They assert that Students are more competent and in
selective schools there will be good teachers to teach. Besides, A fully comprehensive system
would ensure good results for everyone. According to the education newspaper, in recent years,
the entrance standards of specialized schools are only slightly higher than those of non-
specialized schools in the same province. Therefore, Education is a right, not a privilege. A good
education should be available to all, not just the elitist stratum whilst the majority are left to rot
Refutation : I don’t agree with you. You said that it's not fair because students who go to
selective schools will have more job opportunities. However, not every school that specializes in
is favored, they also have to make efforts to meet the criteria set by that company. Their scores
are not everything, besides they also have to learn outside to get more knowledge and
experience. And those are the things they have access to in that selective school. Because they
have spent a large amount of money to be able to have a good environment to experience. The
example you give shows that the benchmarks of the selective schools are only slightly higher
than the non-specialized schools. But that's only a very small part of the downside. And for
example the entrance benchmarks of Amsterdam or Chu Van An are very difficult to achieve.
WEEK 3 : Free Healthcare
Affirmative
Affirmative 1: Fairness
Ladies and gentlemen, today we are debating on the resolution “Should healthcare be free for all
the residents”. My name is Y and I am from the affirmative team who strongly support this
resolution. I have one main reason: The fairness
Free health care brings fairness to the poor. I believe that every citizen should have equal access
to health care as well as equal opportunity to treatment no matter how rich they are.
For example in the EU some countries use the Universal health care system which is provided
free of charge by doctors. This system helps the poor to get a chance to have high tech treatment.
We can compare with a country where people have to pay for all the costs and you can see the
big gap in the life expectancy between the poor and the rich. In the first published journal of the
American medical Association, 2014 it is found that the life expectancy of the wealthiest 5% of
America was 12 years longer than the poorest 5%. While inconstrat within the UK, one of the
country using The Universal health care system the disparity in the life expectancy was only 5
years
Refutation:
I got your idea, you have talked about free health care allowing the poor to have a chance to
access hightech treatment. i don't totally agree with this idea
However, if healthcare is free, there will be an increase in taxes to support it. More funds needed,
causing tax to increase again and a vicious cycle happens, causing it to be unsustainable in the
long run. For more detail, it means that for some poor healthy people they still have to pay higher
tax, even when they do not use the free health care system regularly.
So whether to turn the matter over, is free health care really fair or not? I think the answer is not
Healthcare should be free for everyone so that nobody gets left out. With a free health care
system, Anyone can get a health check. Especially poor or less fortunate people, they will not
have to think about paying hospital fees and still have adequate health care. People will be more
willing to go to hospitals because they are free, which enables doctors to find potential risks in
patients and prevent some chronic diseases. Therefore, there is no doubt that the life expectancy
in this region will increase. The United States has a world class healthcare system along with
that, they have very good health insurance policies for people so their health is guaranteed.
Besides, free access to healthcare also allows interns in hospitals to have more chances to
diagnose a variety of patients for more people will come to hospitals. Interns can start from
diagnosing some slight diseases and this allows them to gain practical experience, contributing to
the medical quality.
Refutation: I don’t agree with you, you said that Free healthcare will improve their quality of
life. However, that freedom will make people dependent on it. People will tend not to take good
care of themselves because they know they will get free care with the best health system. And
when there are too many patients, the hospital will be overloaded, there will not be enough
manpower and medical supplies to serve. Moreover, the Government will also have to shoulder
great responsibility and great damage as well. You also give Us as an example. But you don't cite
sources nor specific numbers to prove it. According to the BBC, the free care and good health
system in Canada make people believe that Canada is a good place to live. However, Canada
today faces a crisis towards the healthcare system.
Refutation : I’ve got your idea, you’ve talked about government debt , and the reason is that the
government doesn't have enough money to compensate for free healthcare. But actually, your
source is not convincing, you did not mention the percentage of debt of the US government, what
if it’s just a small amount of money ? And it’s quite objective if you just talked about the US,
what about other countries ?Do they face the same thing ? Moreover, based on ncbi.com, a
national library of medicine , which included a wide range of original research, healthcare
expenditure can result in better provision of health opportunities, which can strengthen human
capital and improve productivity, thereby contributing to economic performance. And therefore,
free healthcare can positively impact long term economic results. Which is surveyed and
researched clearly and convincingly
Refustation:
I’ve got your idea. To some extent, I find your reason true, however what you have mentioned
can be solved. Regarding the quality of medicine and medical equipment, I believe that besides
governmental funds and budget, our healthcare system can get support from individuals,
sponsors… which may advance those conditions. On the other hand, with a view to your
example of the situation patients have to wait in line for long hours, online patient check in is
one of the effective solutions to alleviate the burdens for patient waitings. K hospital in Tân
Triều is a concrete evidence to this circumstance.
Affirm 1 : Health
As beauty contests and misses become ideal models for women, lots of females lose confidence
and try to perform well in front of others. In order that they can be in a perfect appearance,
women change themselves which physically and mentally affect their health. Loads of them
follow strict diets and spend long hours in the gym to be beautiful, to have slim bodies without
anticipating consequences: eating disorder, even gastralgia. Additionally, they are always under
pressure of how they look, whether they are beautiful, or even obsessed with it. Regardings Gulf
News- a daily English language newspaper published from Dubai, United Arab Emirates,Dr
Suzy Sobhi- Dean of Studies at Health, Sciences and Safety Institute living in Ras Al Khaimah
shares: “With pageants, there can be a slight negativity around body image because a lot of
contestants might take up drastic diets to try and lose many kilos before the show, which is not a
healthy, sustainable way to reach your ideal body weight”. (Should beauty contests be banned-
2017 December 07)
Refustation:
I’ve got your idea about health. As you mentioned diet and gyming have a negative impact on
women's bodies, I don’t think they are good arguments as scientical diet and gym planning helps
females keep fit and stay healthy without any adverse effect on both physical and mental health,
they even improve health and make them confident in themselves. Furthermore, looking
beautiful and confident in front of others is an apparent and notorious concern with women as
they become features and factors of women and what women are always looking forward to.
Miss Khanh Van is an obvious eyewitness of a healthy and inspired miss and it does not fit with
what you have claimed: eating disorders, under pressure, being obsessed with appearance.
Moreover your example might be outdated since it was published in 2017.
Affirmative 2: Imposition
Beauty contests set false standards about how beautiful women are supposed to look. The
question is, what is beauty? Beautiful by their cultural standards or what? Each participant who
represents their country has been carefully selected, who is both beautiful and talented. So if they
go to compete in the beauty contest when they are eliminated from the competition, it is like
saying that their country is not beautiful. Moreover, In a beauty contest, the contestants' overall
attractiveness is surveyed before a panel of judges, and the women conduct themselves in a way
to please the audience. Candidates must always practice their answering skills carefully. But it's
just practice to score points for the judges as well as the audience, not all from
themselves.Therefore, beauty contests turn women into objects to be used and played with.
Refusion: I don’t agree with you. You said that Beauty contests set false standards of beauty and
women are used for their entertainment. However Beauty contests not only celebrate beauty, but
also wisdom, morality and talent. The contest is aimed at both honoring beauty while also
seeking beauty with kindness. Although they were trained in the skill of answering questions,
they could not memorize it. The questions are confidential and once it is selected, the candidate
must answer it immediately. they won't have time to edit sentences. so the answers all come from
their thoughts and from their hearts. Therefore, the winners of the pageant are often selected as
ambassadors. Through their image and actions, they convey to the community meaningful peace
messages.AND the message that the contest wants to convey are messages about the
environment and people, not affecting ethnicity and culture, so it's not as negative as you said.
Refutation:
I got your idea, you’ve talked about personal development. It means the participant will have a
chance to improve their skill, confidence and relationship and a Miss Universe not only has
beauty but also talent. I agree to some extent however, it has a lot of black sides such as
following severe weight control plans and spending extended periods of time in the exercise
center to be lovely, to have thin bodies without expecting outcome. Additionally, they are always
under pressure of how they look, whether they are beautiful, or even obsessed with it.
Refutation : You’ve talked about pressure on health, and you gave proof of Arielle Newman,
Will Smith statement and Safe kids worldwide. But I do not see a clear point in your view. You
said we need to have a law on the age of children who use their talent to earn money. In the US,
UK, we all have this. As I reported in the UK, under age 16, children are not allowed to work
,and between 17-18, they only have 40 hours a week to work, so if they overwork or overtrain,
it’s their responsibility, the government have taken care of it and there will be no need to have a
ban anymore. And you said, it’s can cause mental and physical health, i think that even if they do
not earn money, studying only still have its own pressure, each choice include pressure and
challenge, so pressure come from many aspects of life, we can not only focus on this field and
say that it is the root of health problems.
Negative 2: Responsibility
A child gains a sense of responsibility at an early age when pursuing an early career. A child
learns to become a responsible individual as following through with commitments is essential in
a show business career.When acting, You might need a lot of responsibility. Having
responsibility is very important, And you need it for many things. That might be hard for young
children, But that will be a very good chance to learn responsibility. Nowaday, Education is
designed to prepare children for their adult lives and careers. Therefore, being exposed to
performances from a young age makes children aware of their responsibilities. For example,
When the child is an actor, they understand that they have a responsibility for that role to be able
to give the audience the best footage. It is not acceptable to be wishy-washy and change your
mind if something fun comes along that you’d rather do. If you have a job to do, you must be
responsible and complete it.
Refustation: I got your point that child performers help children have a responsibility. But I
don’t agree with you because The example you give is only based on your own observations and
judgments, and there are no exact sources or data to prove it. I think it's too early to take
responsibility at work for young children. Because they are at the age of eating, playing,
learning. They are living carefree, thoughtless. Children should live up to their age, have fun and
discover what they want. Taking responsibility from a young age will make them feel pressured
and may lose the beautiful childhood.
Affirm 2 : Cyberbullying
The fact which no one can deny is that the influence of social media is not only on adults, but
mainly on adolescents and children. These days, these years, Teenagers need to fit in, to be
popular, and to outdo others. This process was challenging long before the advent of social
media. Add Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, and Instagram into the mix, and you suddenly have
teenagers subjected to feeling pressure to grow up too fast in an online world.
The Cyberbullying Institute’s 2019 survey of U.S. middle and high school students found that
over 36 percent report having been cyberbullied at some point in their life, mainly through the
Internet with 30 percent having been victimized twice or more. It also found that almost 15
percent admitted to having cyberbullied someone at least once, and nearly 11 percent admitting
to doing it two or more times. Teenagers can misuse social media platforms to spread rumors,
share videos aimed at destroying reputations, and to blackmail others. ( according to the New
York Times report in 2019 ) .If the government can not restrict this now, there will be more toxic
challenges in the world, lots of children will be affected and we can not predict the results.
Refutation : You’ve talked about cyberbullying and you show the survey of the US is an
example. But I see, it’s not convincing and your point is quite objective. You only took an
example of the US, what about other countries ? Do they face the same issue or do they already
have campaigns and solutions for these problems ? I can not see a clear view about your opinion.
Moreover , you mainly focus on Social Media, but other media like youtube or press , is there
any problems ? Nowaday, we have youtube kids, we have websites to restrict the use of social
media. Adolescents are at the age they can control their actions, and children also need to be
taken care of by their parents. So I believe we can not blame the media or the government, it’s
individual choice and responsibility.
Refutation:
I’ve got your idea: rights. I agree with you that free media is one of the rights. However, I don't
think that governments managing the media shut human mouths, blind human eyes and make ppl
become robots. Which I mean is you may misunderstand the resolution since government
controls reach of the media might eliminate just fake news and rumours not the updated and
other kind of news. And of course this beneficials us in finding, selecting and processing news.
Regarding your example, despite its ownership I cannot see the source- the context is created,
and when it was published so I cannot make sure whether it is outdated and reliable or not.
Negative 2: Transparency
It cannot be denied that on the political front, the media also plays a very important role in
making us aware that not only the individual political leaders help us to scrutinize the whole
government activities. Therefore, If the government controls the media, abusive government
officials will get away with their wrong practices such as abuse of power and corruption. A
government leader, for example, can ban the release of videos and online content proving his or
her illegal activities by imposing news blackouts.. In China, it is very difficult for the public to
know the truth since the media is totally controlled by the government. Thus the media has lost
its ability to supervise the government and turns to be a tool used by the government to control
people's thinking. Or Whether you consider the presidential election in the United States or the
parliamentary election in India, which has been covered so comprehensively by the media that
even before the election, everyone is clearly going to vote for whom. If there is a government
intrusion into the operation of the media, we will be deprived of that information. So, We
shouldn't trust the government too much
Refutation:
There is no transparency if the government interferes in the mass media and takes China and
other countries as an example. But without government intervention, much bad news would be
spread. The spread of reactionary, defamatory and distorting information about the government
will make people confused. From there, causing the country to be in turmoil, sometimes leading
to confrontation with each other. Therefore, it is necessary to control the media to remove
official information, cause social disorder, and create a healthy information environment for
everyone to access.
Affirmative 1 : Cybersecurity
Hi ladies and gentlemen , my name is X, and today, our topic of discussion is “...”. We come
from an affirmative team, who agree on the idea “ AI is dangerous to human life “. My first
reason for it is cybersecurity. Along with the development of AI is the higher chances that cyber
criminals use this technology to develop more advanced and efficient threats + attacks.
According to Gatefy, a famous website for email protection, in 2021, indicated that : “
cybercriminals may use algorithms to understand the pattern of automated emails sent from
Netflix or Apple to develop fake ones that look like the real ones, and AI can even create fake
videos, fake voices and fake profiles. And we can all see that although cyber security laws have
been introduced for a long time, not much has been fixed. Another proof, from “What
happened”, a book of Hillary Clinton, a well-known American politician, who worked a lot on
the problem of cyber security, said “ technologists have warned that AI could one day pose an
existential security threat “
Refutation : I got your idea. You’ve talked about cybersecurity and it’s the reason why
information breaches happened (lộ thông tin). But actually, leaking data has existed for a long
time, even before this enormous development of AI. As can be seen, leaking infor may come
from various reasons : weak passwords, clicking trash links, giving phone numbers freely on
social media, sending email to the wrong person, it’s all about physical actions, which can not be
blamed for AI. And I suggest that it’s more reasonable if we learn to protect our information
efficiently, learn to backup data and use safer methods. Moreover, it’s also a soluble problem ,
you’ve mentioned that cybersecurity legislation has no positive impacts, but no statistics , no
data or survey were given, so it’s not provincing, and I believe, the government has put more
care on this problem day by day, and it will be soon declined with the geniuses of human brain.
By this refutation, I believe that, compared to its advantages, AI is not harmful to human life.
Refutation: I don’t agree totally with your point. You said that AI will replace human works that
make people’s creativity lose. However, the purpose of using AI is to get rid of some tedious and
repetitive work so that people can focus on doing more qualified jobs. Besides, AI can help ppl
minimize errors, reduce pressure. As a result, working capacity will increase
Negative
Refutation: You indicated thay AI brings high efficiency at work and gives numbers to prove
that efficiency. However, I don’t agree with you.Because, If we use AI, people are deprived of
work, left with empty time. Moreover, The usoff AI becomes widespread, people will lose their
creativity and become lazy. You also said that Ai can minimize errors. But, If AI makes a
mistake due to a mechanical problem, who will be responsible? We also cannot guarantee that
there will be no errors during the AI work. So we should not depend on AI.
Affirm 1 : Preservation
Tourism can significantly contribute to environmental protection, conservation and restoration of
biological diversity and sustainable use of natural resources. Because of their attractiveness,
pristine sites and natural areas are identified as valuable and the need to keep the attraction alive
can lead to creation of national parks and wildlife parks.
For example, according to gdrc.org , In Hawaii, new laws and regulations have been enacted to
preserve the Hawaiian rainforest and to protect native species. The coral reefs around the islands
and the marine life that depend on them for survival are also protected. Hawaii now has become
an international center for research on ecological systems - and the promotion and preservation
of the islands' tourism industry was the main motivation for these actions. Tourism has had a
positive effect on wildlife preservation and protection efforts. Numerous animal and plant
species have already become extinct or may become extinct soon. Many countries have therefore
established wildlife reserves and enacted strict laws protecting the animals that draw nature-
loving tourists. As a result of these measures, several endangered species have begun to thrive
again.
= > should not ban tourism
REFUTATION : I got your team’s idea , you’ve talked about preservation, as I could see, your
evidence did not include the date, I mean it could be a long time ago and your information may
not be valued anymore; therefore, it’s not convincing. And what's the current state of these coral
reefs ? In my opinion, preservation is not a long term advantage of tourism. What will happen if
this Hawaii is no longer a tourism destination? They just take advantage of the beauty of nature
instead of truly wanting to protect and embrace them. Moreover, many natural species are also
negatively affected by irresponsible tourists, it’s not really a way to protect the environment .
Hence, I strongly reject your idea and believe that tourism is not beneficial to the environment
Refustation:
Your point indicated that tourism has an effect on our lives and especially the ecosystem.
However, I don’t agree with you because Tourism activities have created good effects for the
rational use and optimal protection of natural resources and the environment. Today, tourism
enhances the quality of the environment. Tourism can provide initiatives for environmental
cleanup through controlling air, water, soil quality, noise pollution, waste disposal and other
environmental issues through landscape planning programs. design, construction and
maintenance of architectural works. In addition, tourism also helps protect rare and precious
animals, contributes to enriching biodiversity, and enriches ecosystems by adding new plant and
animal species.