ipl-logo

Isa pa lods

.docx
School
Harvard University**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
TAX 2364
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Jan 10, 2025
Pages
10
Uploaded by AgentTeamStarling22
Intro {Therefore providing a benefitial element that is objectively accommodating for all{ The opposing side has presumptuously erected the whole foundation of their arguments with premise that the we as the government side are promotingthe violation of the people’s freedom which not true they have constantly explored this premise throughout the whole debate and although they did a fiar job defending it they did miss the whole point of the motion }Now Carefully analyzing the arguments that our prime ministerhas presented Will lead us to understand that we as thegovernment side understands that the opposing side and that theywishto support a sort of freedom to violate the people’s right the community based initiatives for all of us to have an objectively better life and we as the opposition fairly agrees and support this nonetheless, webelieve that prioritizing the funding of community based initiatives in expense of calling out government inadequacies is a move that will not utterly combat the already complicated issue thatour community is already facing now, so contradictory to what the government whip has said, it is not us that moved away from the context{ The government whip has constantly contrasted the idea that we do not support the calling out the government when we in fact who are pushing for it because we understand that it is fundamental for a progressive movements }Our deputy prime minister has sufficiently given us { We as the opposition would instead advocate for a more extended and inclusive parameter that embraces the importance of }Leaning towards the governments argument that discusses the interest of the people leads us to believe that the government is not at all considerate with the individual experiences that women faces despite arguing that they areBy Meta responseAchievementsWhat will this achieve? 1 is and 2{(Intros)}(We believe that our argument outweighs the argument of the ____ side, How so?The ____ side has explored the premise that… however, analyzing The government side clearly doesn’t understand the given motion because { The opposing side has clearly disregarded the importance of church and state separation where the preferences that are present in both parties shall not affect the autonomy of each other and therefore their definition and their arguments is totally dismissive in respect with the motion}
Background image
Now Panel I would like to emphasize the fact that the opposing side has constantly been attacking the structures of our arguments without fully giving sufficient context for their own argumentsI would like to rebut the case that was presented by the opposing prime minister in which they stated that issues that encompasses TW! Laws and Domestic abuse etc. is pure misandry(When in fact these issues that are byproducts of patriarchy which is rooted in sexism that of which is against women{ Now PANEL in order to fulfill the opposition’s inclinations for us to provide an analysis as to whether or not lifting tax exemption for these religious institutions that promotes politicans is benefitial for our society we would like to present to you the following cases that proves as to why not taxing these religious institutionsis not only detrimental for our democracy it is alsoobjectively very harmful for both parties}First, disregarding the sentiments that wishes to impairthe unnecessary and undemocratic advancements from the churchis a very contemptuous move from the opposing side because this tolerates the already detrimental and problematic affairs that society is facing now like issues with block voting and all thatSecondly, not taxing these institutions will further tolerate such undemocratic behavior and will not only lead to harm but will also ultimately ignore the actual issues that grows from it and it will not, by the end of the day, be beneficialfor us.And why is this the case? As our prime minister and deputy prime minister contrasted the problem is and has always been the fact that we have always tolerated this kind of behaviour}Now With that said, I would like to Follow the premise of which our deputy prime minister has expanded upon Which will lead us to understand that we should instead promote the clear understanding of how these issues originated in order for us to actually move forward with progressPANEL We already won this debate based on our perception of the analysis And Just to remind youour side has sufficiently provided enough information and points that supports our arguments and the foundation of these argumentsthat of which are the following 1is that we have promoted and expressed the importance of separating the church and the state2 we recognize that this premise is fundamental for democracy and for the good of the masses3 Panel, in order to remind you about the following instances where the government has clearly dismissed the importance of promoting a better alternative for us to objectively have a better society we would like to recall
Background image
The prime minister’scase where the deputy prime minister has constantly given elements that expressed sentiments of freedom is very brittle And they did not fully give us a context as to why it violates that freedom of choice when they are in fact the ones who are violating the freedom of the people by spiritually coercing them.I would also like to recall opposing sides ’s case where they sentiments to cater the politicians instead of the peopleThat Comparing our side with the government side is a clear win for us because all of the arguments that have been made by the government side does not fulfill the burden that was given to them And although they tried to defend the foundation of their arguments, they did not however fully secure it because they have abandoned the main issue and the nuances that are embedded within the motion Just to remind the panel and everybody else the argument from the government side promotes the narrative that With that said, it is clear that we have won this debate Panel, if you choose to live in their world you would have to settle for an environment that toleratesAnd if you choose ours, you would have a world that takes this issues intInterest of the peopleSummaryRebuttalsOur best case is better than their best caseOutro Explicitly say it, nit pick a case from the opposing sideNo one linersFlag (why is it important)Why is this the caseMechanizationAllocationExtend And with that I end my speechGoodevening everyone my name is kim and I will be your adjudicator for tonight
Background image
But before we start the round I would like to first remind everyone to respect each other’s poi preference, no badgering, and no capitalizing. I will also not be taking notes after the 7 minute mark, wit that said let’s now start off this debate by calling on the honourable prime ministerThank you for that wonderful speech Now to Gov pmThw make voting compulsory Voting is an obligation everybody has Reasons why they don’t want to voteThey don’t agree with the politiciansNo access with educationThey just want to stay out of politicsDiscourse is necessary Voting will be a national lawGreater chance of interveranceVoter education, information about the politicians, programsPeople who won’t vote will be finedUrgency, Should increase voter turn outPeople are More likely to care Not voting will skew the political landscape Why waste Lo
Background image
No law shall be passed to suppress the freedom of the people Right to abstain People are Not incentived because of the polarized atmospherePeople don’t vote because of religionEconomical status Democracy gives us the freedom to not voteDemocracy will be questioned Penalty is unlawful Utopian, doesn’t answer the important questionsHow will you know if people didn’t voteNot enough man power and resourcesThe problem is not the people who do no vote, it is the people who are not well educatedCounter policy, combating misinformationDp Red tagging is inevitable The opp has faulty reasoning because they don’t think about the long term effects of their counterpolicyDidn’t dismantle Voters education is the main benefit of the government sideMaking voting compulsory is Increasing the government effort to educate the people and provide them resourceFine is the major consequence It’s not as harsh, the harms in the status quo is too extreme, penalties are necessary because it is an urgent matter to improve societyThe More people are involved, the better the discourse Economic benefitTribal group, isolate, mandating a law that would make people interact and include indigenous people is betterEven if abuse is possible its still better because
Background image
DloTHE GOVERNMENT TELL US THAT THEY WILL MANDATETHEY NEVER TOLD US THAT THEY WILL ALSO FORCE PEOPLE TO REGISTERNOT SECURING THIS MAKES THEIR CASE FALLTHEIR POLICY DOESN’T STAND IT IS UNLIKLEY BECAUSE IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ENGAGEMENTVOTER EDUCATION DOESN’T GUARENTEE READINESS TO VOTEA STATE THAT TAKES THE PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO ABSTAIN IS A STATE THAT IS ALSO LIKELY TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTSIT SUPRESSES THE PEOPLE’S FREEDOM THE GOV LAW IS UNECESSARY THIS WILL CAUSE BACKLASHES GOVERNMENT REACTS VIOLENTLY TO PEOPLE WHO PROTESTPEOPLE WHO ARE NOT READY TO VOTE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT INFORMED, THIS IS CONTRADICTORY FORCING PEOPLE TO VOTE AGAINST THEIR MORALS IS OPPRESSIVE THE POSSIBILITY FOR THEM TO JUST VOTE ANYONE WITHOUT BEING INFORMED IS A PROBLEM HOW IS HUMAN RIGHTS BETTER ON YOUR SIDE BETTER MOBILIZATION OF VOTERS EDUCATION WITHOUT TAKING THE PEOPLE’S RIGHTS TO ABSTAINCHOOSING NOT TO VOTE IS A FORM AN EXPRESSIONGOV WHIP WHICH WORLD BETTER GIVES US BETTER DEMOCRACYOPPOSITION SIDE THE OPPOSITION REFUSE TO ENGAGE WITH THE GOVERNMENT’S BENEFITGOING AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONPROTESTS ARE STILL POSSIBLE IN GOV SIDE
Background image
GOV IS MORE RELEVANT OPP TOLD US THAT DEMOCRACY WILL BE QUESTIONEDIT’S NOT TRUE BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL ABLE TO VOTE FRO WHOMEVER THEY WANTEVEN IF IT DOES VIOLATE THEIR RIGHTS, ITS STILL BETTER BECAUSE OF BETTER DISCOURSECOMPARATIVEBENEFITS OF GOV:INCENTIVE TO PROVIDE BETTER VOTER EDUCATIONTHEY ARE ABLE TO MAXIMIZE THEIR DEMOCRACY, THEY ARE CONTINUOUSLY OPPRESSED BY POLICIES THAT ARE NOT INCLUSIVE AND DOESN’T GIVE OTHER PEOPLE A SAYPEOPLE WHO STILL DOESN’T WANT TO VOTE STILL GETS BENEFIT BECAUSE THEY ARE MORE ABLE TO SAY WHAT THEY WANT THEY WILL BE MORE LIKELY TO KNOW WHAT THE POLITICIANS WANTGIVES PEOPLE MORE PLATFORM OPP WHIPREBUTTALSISSUEGOV PROPOSED A LAW, MANDATING COMPULSORY VOTINGTHE GOVERNMENT SIDE FAILED TO PAINT A PICTURE AS TO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN THE CASE WHEREIN THE PEOPLE WOULD NOT VOTE, YES THEY DID THE GOVERNMENT WOULDN’T KNOW HOW TO KNOW WHOM VOTEDCONSTI- DENIEDHOW WILL YOU EDUCATE THE MASSES EFFICIENTLY BANDWAGONBEST CASE SCENARIO POSSIBLE COMPLICATIONS NO COUNTRY DOES IT BECAUSE ITS UNDEMOCRATIC IT WOULD HINDER TO ADDRESS MODERN ISSUES, GOV SAID IT’S A MODERN SOLUTION
Background image
OPP REPLYWHAT IS THE PROBLEM AND WHO SOLVES IT BETTERTHE PROBLEM IS NOT THE NUMBER OF VOTERSWE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH VOTERSWE HAVE MILLIONS OF VOTERSTHE QUESTION IS DO WE HAVE LOGICAL THINKING VOTERSWE PROVIDED YOU BETTER PRAGMATICSTHEY CONTRIBUTED MOREGOV REPLYCITING THE CONSTITUTION MAKES THE OPP LOSE THIS DEBATETHE OPP DID NOT PROVIDE A WORST CASE FOR THEIR WORLD
Background image
HELLO GOODEVENING EVERYONEI’M YOU’RE ADJUDICATOR FOR THIS ROUND AND I WILL BE STARTING MY SPEECH IN 3…2…1.OK SO I WOULD LIKE TO FIRSTLY COMMEND EVERYONE FOR ALL OF YOUR WONDERFUL SPEECHES, EACH AND EVERYONE OF YOU WERE FAIRLY ABLE TO PROVIDE SUBSTANCE WHICH MADE THIS DEBATE QUITE ENTERTAINING AT LEAST ON MY SIDEBEFORE I HEAD ON TO MY SPEECH, SIGNPOSTINGFIRST ARE THE GENERAL COMMENTS, THEN THE RATING, ISSUES AND THEN THE ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THE OVERALL WINNER, AFTER THAT WILL BE MY JUSTIFICATIONS OK SO FIRST, FOR MY GENERAL COMMENTSOK SO I THINK THAT IT WAS GOOD FOR THIS DEBATE TO HAVE HAD A LOT OF CONTESTATIONS, THERE WERE A LOT OF SUBSTANCE THAT WERE PUT OUT AND I THINK THAT TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, IT DID SOMEHOW MADE THIS DEBATE A LITTLE MORE INTERESTING. DESPITE ALL THE CLASHING POINTS HOWEVER, I STILL THINK THAT A LOT OF YOU COULD’VE STILL FOCUSED ON A VARIETY OF VARIBALES THAT COULD HAVE HELPED YOUR SIDE’S CASE SOUND LESS GENERIC, BECAUSE WHAT I NOTICED ABOUT THIS ROUND WAS THAT DESPITE ALL THE CLASHES THAT HAD HAPPENED, I FELT LIKE ALL OF US WERE STILL RUNNING IN CIRCLES ADDRESSING SOME OF THE SAME STUFF THAT WAS ALREADY POINTED OUT BY THE OTHER SIDE.NOW BECAUSE I FELT LIKE A LOT OF YOU WERE RECYCLING THE SAME ARGUMENTS OVER AND OVER, I FELT LIKE I HAD TO RATE THIS ROUND BELOW AVERAGE. I FEEL LIKE ALL OF YOU WERE CAPABLE OF GIVING OUT FRESHER MATERIALS BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT FELT LIKE YOU KINDA HELD BACK TO A CERTAIN EXTENT SO IT REALLY MADE A SORT OF VACCUUM THAT TOLERATED THE REHASHING OF ARGUMENTS. NOW ON TO MY ISSUES, NOW BESIDES THE REHASHING PROBLEM, I ALSO FELT LIKE BOTH SIDES LACKED TO GIVE AN EFFORT IN TERMS OF FULLY EXPLORING THE MOTION TO ITS LIMIT, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE NO ONE REALLY BOTHERED TO LIKE EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF VOTING IN OF ITSELF AND THE EFFECTIVITY OF VOTING AS WELL, WHICH I THINK IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION THAT WE OUGHT TO ANSWER BY THE END OF THE DAY. THE GOVERNMENT SIDE WAS VERY KEEN ON DEBUNKING AND RESPONDING TO THE REBUTTALS OF THE OPPOSITION WHICH I HIGHLY CREDIT, WHILE THE OPPOSITION SIDE WAS REALLY COMPETENT IN TERMS OF EFFECTIVELY PAINTING A PICTURE OF HOW THEIR WORLD WOULD LOOK LIKE WHILE ALSO ENGAGING WITH THE GOVERNMENT’S COUNTERFACTUAL WHICH I ALSO HIGHLY CREDIT. DESPITE ALL OF THOSE THO, I STILL FELIT LIKE I AD TO GIVE THE WIN TO THE GOVERNMENT SIDE SIMPLY BECAUSE A LOT OF THE ARGUMENTS FROM THE OPPOSITION LIKE THE CONSITITUTION AND THE GOVERNMENT’S INABILITY TO GARNER RESOURCES AND TO EFFECTIVELY MOBILIZE WAS KINDA AUTOMATICALLY TRUMPED BY GOVERNMENT FIAT, THIS ALSO INCLUDES THE OPPOSITIONS ARGUMENT THAT SUGGESTS A LOOPHOLE IN THE GOVERNMENT’S EFFORT TO MAKE REGISTERING MANDATORY AS WELL.
Background image
Gov, thr the glorification of women’s resiliencePmAll women, trans, biologically etc. We regret women’s resilience but not women empowerment Resilience refers to economic abuse, empowerment refers to women who ought to fight for other women We do not hate women who endures, we perceive them as victimsRegrets resiliency in the face of physical abuseIt affects their development It becomes tolerated and enabled,
Background image