Here are some actual debate motions that were used to train the WSDC national pool in Korea + some suggestable motions that could be easily debated about.
WSDC Motions
This House would make the development of clean industry a condition for receiving non-emergency aid
This House supports the international trading of pollution quotas
This House supports the international trading of pollution permits
This House believes that the Kyoto Summit didn't go far enough.
Motions
THBT awarding the 2022 World Cup to Qatar was a mistake
THW cut all aid to Japan
THW ban unethical treatment of animals
THW regulate the production of movies that deal with sensitive historical events
THW ban SSN in school campus
THW lower the voting age
THBT cultural relativism can justify customs that violate human rights
THW ban religious education in school
THW ban Coca Cola commercials on television
THW ban pornography in public places
THBT standaridzed tests do more harm than good
THW legalize drugs to drug addicts for the purpose of rehabilitation and treatment
THBT plants have rights
THBT condom education is better than education in sexual morality (purity)
THS media censorship on the broadcasting of war atrocities
THW carbon tax airlines
THBT honor killing is justified
THW execute war criminals
THW torture for terrorists are legitimate
THW monitor sex offenders with GPS
THBT the power of the UN security council should be reduced.
THBT teachers should not use profane language against students
THBT outsourcing should be regulated.
THW prohibit teachers from presenting their opinions about controversial subjects in class.
THW regulate the expansion of hypermarkets.
THBT the use of birth control pills should be prescription-free
THBT sex education should be made mandatory in the school curriculum
THW ban any scheme intended to “cure” homosexuality
THBT doctors should not be forced to perform medical procedures that are against their faith
THW give terminally ill patients the right to demand experimental treatment
THW give family members the legal right to forcibly commit drug addicts and alcoholics to rehab clinics
2011년 4월 27일 수요일
WSDC 2008 FINALS
The link below will direct you to the video of the WSDC 2008 Finals, New Zealand vs England-one of the most famous, legendary debates that are well-known to the majority of debaters who actively participate in the debating community. This will be a model example about how extremely good, extraordinary debates can be :) I hope I'd be able to debate like one of them one day.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2114489137963293139#
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2114489137963293139#
Model Debate Case (for Competitions)
This is an example of a debate case that was used in an actual competition (KSDC). I constructed this along with the assistance of my teammates, and it is one of the best cases I've ever created in my debate career. I post this to share this example :)
Motion: THBT the state has the right to separate married couples in cases of domestic violence without the consent of the victim
(Government)
OPENING: Status Quo on D.V (Or after definition…)
A. Dominant (epidemical)
Ex) Approximately 2.1 million people are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States.
B. Detrimental
Ex) Forms of abuse in domestic violence have the potential to lead to mental illness, self-harm, and even attempts at suicide.
Ex) Domestic violence not only causes physical harms, but also threatens, intimidates, undermines the victim’s self-worth or self-esteem, or controls the victim’s freedom.
Ex)
-Physical
Bruises, broken bones, head injuries, lacerations, and internal bleeding are some of the acute effects of a domestic violence incident that require medical attention and hospitalization.
D.V leads to deaths! (+suicide)
Ex) Twenty-nine percent of all women who attempt suicide were battered,
-Psychological
In addition to depression, victims of domestic violence also commonly experience long-term anxiety and panic, and are likely to meet the diagnostic criteria for Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Panic Disorder. The most commonly referenced psychological effect of domestic violence is Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
Ex) Fifty-six percent of women who experience partner violence are diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder
Definition:
*State has the right: A politically stable and economically sufficient government has the legitimate/justified power/authority and should exercise the power.
*Separate: To temporarily divide by legal/executive force (In other words, make couples to divorce)
*Married Couples: Heterosexual Couples with who compose a family unit together.
*In Cases of Domestic Violence: When extreme/severe degrees of violence frequently occur within a family unit that is likely to cause physical/psychological damages to family members. (In forms of physical aggression (hitting, kicking, biting, shoving, restraining, slapping, throwing objects), or threats thereof; sexual abuse; emotional abuse; controlling or domineering)
*Consent of the Victim: The agreement or recognition of the victim/subject of violence
*Policy: When clear/tangential evidence of domestic violence such as signs of Actual Injuries/Wounds/Psychological Damages caused by the abuser has been discovered, we would:
1. Unconditionally separate the married couples for a certain amount of time (minimum 6 months) During the separation period, the government will track the location of the perpetrator with GPS and make sure that the offender doesn’t go anywhere near the victim.
2. (The government) would provide all necessary economical/medical assistance required for managing independent life+ rehabilitation for both victim/perpetrator.
3. After the experiencing independent life, we would then grant the victim a choice to reunite or separate permanently. (However, at this state the victim should be proved to be psychologically stable/sane Recovered mental health) Afterwards, we would also provide assistance to the victim to make her/him supportive of her/himself. Finding jobs, job education for required skills, etc.
4. The custody of the children will be given to the victim because helpful for victim+children/ victims tend to be caring for their children.
We believe the gov. has the authority, or even a duty to intervene because:
A. This is a criminal case-violence is a crime under federal law.
B. They have a duty to protect their citizens’ health/welfare/life especially when they are powerless and vulnerable. Ex) Like taking away custody of children from problematic parents. (without consent) Gov. Actions legitimate, justified.
+However, in the status quo, law enforcements are proven to be ineffective, so we want to implement a more effective measure.
Ex) Criminologists mention that deterrent effects of law enforcement do not last over time. If the victim is uncooperative during investigation, the prosecutor may choose not to pursue the case.[143] If the case is pursued through the criminal justice system, sometimes the resulting sentence is minor. Subsequently, any fear that the abuser has of punishment may have diminished
Then, The victims were less likely to call or trust law enforcement during the next incident of domestic abuse.
Men are often more responsible for domestic violence
Ex) Review of the research Michael Kimmel found that more than 90 percent of "systematic, persistent, and injurious" domestic violence is perpetrated by men (입증할 필요가 있으면 할 것.)
Steps of Analysis
Show Need->Benefit->Practicality
1. Urgent Need (중요!!! Without Consent 할 만큼) for policy
*Logic: There is an urgent need for this policy because
(+problem is serious)
1. The victims of D.V are reluctant, AFRAID to report!
a. Psychological influence/Dependency/Mental Problems
b. Fear for independent life/tearing the family up: What about the children?
c. Economical Concerns
They are threatened, dominated with these issues and are made mute even when they are being abused: they are not in the psychologically sound/fine state to act for themselves or they are scared of other reasons that separation might pose upon them. We the government would like to give them PROPER INFORMATION/NECESSARY SUPPORT/INDEPENDENT TIME AWAY FROM THE PERPETRATOR so that they can make a rational, logical decision that they think is best for them.
2. OUR POLICY MOST EFFECTIVELY ADDRESSES THE PROBLEM
Victims are dependent, influenced by abuser.
Ex) Battered Women’s Syndrome: Most often, victim of domestic abuse do not act because they believe that THEY may be the cause of the problem. This is a reference to any person who, because of constant and severe domestic violence usually involving physical abuse by a partner, may become depressed and/or unable to take any independent action that would allow him or her to escape the abuse. The condition explains why abused people may not seek assistance from others, fight their abuser, or leave the abusive situation. Sufferers may have low self-esteem, and are often led to believe that the abuse is their fault
Ex) Cycle of Abuse: vicious cycle where there is more abuse, more silence, and more inaction… Then, already under such severe mental pressure, do these victims have any REAL CHOICE in the matter? Can they indeed be rational enough to do the right thing and REPORT their abuser? No.
Lenore Walker presented the model of a Cycle of abuse which consists of three basic phases:
Tension Building Phase
Characterized by poor communication, tension, fear of causing outbursts. During this stage the victims try to calm the abuser down, to avoid any major violent confrontations.
Violent Episode
Characterized by outbursts of violent, abusive incidents. During this stage the abuser attempts to dominate his/her partner(victim), with the use of domestic violence.
Honeymoon Phase
Characterized by affection, apology, and apparent end of violence. During this stage the abuser feels overwhelming feelings of remorse and sadness. Some abusers walk away from the situation, while others shower their victims with love and affection.
Ex) Research shows women, who are most dependent on the spouse for economic well being (e.g. homemakers/housewives, women with handicaps, the unemployed), and are the primary caregiver to their children, fear the increased financial burden if they leave their marriage.
Continues as long as victim is with perpetrator.//So once detected, seperation is required.
Our policy most effectively addresses the problem in the status quo (is needed) essential, inevitable
*Because as mentioned above
1. The victims of domestic violence are likely to be under the influence/coercion of the perpetrator (physically threatened)/(psychologically unstable/dependent: for economic reasons or children)in an impotent state, cannot make the right decision.
2. Domestic violence has a high possibility to re-occur
3. Domestic violence is serious.
Immediate solution to protect the victim from any more serious violence. Perpetrators may need help with their behavior. (Requirement for Separation with Rehabilitation)
Giving the victim choice at a SANE, CLEAR state of mind and let them choose what is best for them. (Requirement for Healthy Psychological State)
Provide both with experience of independence with economic stability (Requirement for a chance to experience an independent life with economic assistance.)
2. Tangible Benefits
*Logic: When this separation actually takes place, there will be practical benefits.
A. For Victims
Immediate action (Secure safety, save lives)
Victims are exposed to severe, life threatening violence: RESCUE!
Provides them with a more fair/appropriate opportunity for choice (WE ACTUALLY RESPECT RIGHT OF CHOICE)!!
Most of the cases, victims of D.V are likely to suffer any form of psychological disability or other symptoms. Even if they are not, they could be bound to an undesirable marriage because they fear economic/mental independence. Anyway, they could not be in the exact sound and best condition to decide what is best for them. With our policy, such victims are given the FAIR OPPORTUNITY of choice for their happiness after they receive necessary help and assistance and are recovered to a good state. +Proper information about their status quo (Ex: The actions they could take when D.V recurs, understanding of what happened, psychological advice)
IGNORING POWERLESS PEOPLE WHO AREN’T EVEN CAPABLE OF MAKING CHOICES THAT ARE BEST FOR THEM (WITH MENTAL ISSUES) ISN’T EXACTLY THE BEST WAY THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD RESPOND/ NOT TRULY RESPECTING THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE
Ex) Mental hospitals (Do not give pathological mental patients the choice to run around and hurt/kill themselves or others)
Ex) Prohibiting teenagers from tobacco, alcohol (Do not allow impressionable, immature teenagers to get addicted to harmful substances)
Because freedom of choice should be given to only those who are capable to rationally consider and agonize about their future and be responsible for their decisions.-> In a sound state of mind.
B. For Perpetrators
Perpetrators could be suffering from psychological issues, too. With government intervention, they can receive proper treatment for rehabilitation away from someone he or she used to abuse, which will make them recognize the importance of the family members and truly remorse their faults.
Ex) In general, about 80% of both court-referred and self-referred men in these domestic violence studies exhibited diagnosable psychopathology, typically personality disorders which means they are susceptible of exercising violence again and again (unstable)
C. For Children(x bad example for children, no passing-on of crime)
Even affects children/violence passes onto generations.
Ex) Social learning theory suggests that people learn from observing and modeling after others' behavior. With positive reinforcement, the behavior continues. If one observes violent behavior, one is more likely to imitate it. If there are no negative consequences (e. g. victim accepts the violence, with submission), then the behavior will likely continue. Often, violence is transmitted from generation to generation in a cyclical manner
Ex) Several studies have shown that maternal interpersonal violence-related posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can, despite traumatized mother's best efforts, interfere with their child's response to the domestic violence and other traumatic events
Bad for children overall.
Ex) In 2009, it was estimated that as many as 7 to 14 million children are exposed to domestic violence, falling victim to its effects in the United States.[1] Many children who witness domestic violence in the home believe that they are to blame, and live in a constant state of fear. These children also fall victim to physical abuse, as well. It has been shown that in families where domestic violence is present, child abuse is 15 times more likely to occur
Ex) Behavioral, social, and emotional problems: higher levels of aggression, anger, hostility, oppositional behavior, and disobedience; fear, anxiety, withdrawal, and depression; poor peer, sibling, and social relationships; low self-esteem.
Cognitive and attitudinal problems: lower cognitive functioning, poor school performance, lack of conflict resolution skills, limited problem-solving skills, acceptance of violent behaviors and attitudes, belief in rigid gender stereotypes and male privilege.
Long-term problems: higher levels of adult depression and trauma symptoms, increased tolerance for and use of violence in adult relationships.
all problems of children who are exposed to violent environment at homes.
3. Practical Solution
{When domestic violence is discovered in various circumstances, such as self-report/report by witnesses or neighbors/police investigations/notification by doctor or NGOs the government can take immediate action. (We are talking about the cases being discovered, not our burden to prove most of the actual cases are reported because just by even resolving the matters effectively when D.Vs are reported, still is substantial solution+report will increase based on its outcome.)
Ex) The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) indicates that in 1998 about 876,340 violent domestic crimes were reported in the U.S
Ex) According to the Department of Justice:
• Approximately 60% of family violence victimizations were reported to police between 1998 and 2002, up from about half between 1993 and 1998. } <- Report Rate 갖고 딴지걸면 반박! *Logic: Our policy (Government Intervention) is the only method that will be effective and actually work. Effective Ex) Emergency Protection Order (with consent of the victim) It can give the victim: • exclusive occupation of the home, up to 30 days It can give temporary care and custody of a child to the victim or another person. It can direct a peace officer, such as the police to: • remove the respondent from the home It can direct the person against whom the order is made: • to stay away from any place identified in the order • not to contact the victim or another person (Another form of Separation) Immediate effect(concrete): Reports indicate some 86% of the women who received a protection order state the abuse either stopped or was greatly reduced. Not likely to occur again A. If victim chooses separation, then new life with other partners. B. If victim chooses reunification, the victim is likely to be equipped with proper information and a sound mental state/perpetrator went through process of rehab. Possibility for recurrence decreases. Benefits: May consume a little more money, but FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION/PREVENTION OF RECURRENCE if this prob. is solved, in long-term, we won’t have to invest any more resources: beneficial +THAT’s WHAT TAXES ARE MEANT FOR, CITIZEN WELFARE and RESOLVING SERIOUS PROBLEMS OF SOCIETY Increase report-rate: Once the effect of policy is proven, then more and more people will believe in government aid and call for help. Gov. authority, credibility increase.
*Team Value: Choice, Realistic Solutions
*The word ‘victim’ does not necessarily mean ‘women’.
*The punishment could be deemed as unfair and improper- under our legal code, there is no such punishment like enforcing divorce (Tearing up families).
The case is based on the definition of separation as permanent. If gov. asserts differently, we simply can argue the problems will happen again.
Studies indicate temporary separation may be an effective solution at first, but its effects eventually decline and become ineffective as time progresses and when the same measure is repeated.
1. Disempowerment of Victim (Freedom of Choice)
*Logic: The government side’s policy not only disregards the rights of the individuals and freedom of choice, but it directly leads to the disempowerment of the victim making the abused even more powerless and dependent. The gov. is making decisions on perhaps the most important issue of the victim’s life, but they will do so even without their agreement? What the proposition is suggesting is absurd: they would like to solve the problem of victims being swayed by abusers often in power by simply shifting the control to another entity. Still, the victims do not have any control of their life, their opinions are disrespected, and they are as impotent as they were before the gov’s intrusion. (Stripped of their lives)
If Gov. policy disregards victim choice who are already powerless, GAME OVER. Who does respect the victim, their voice?
Families (Victims) could have their own way of living or solving problems (Standards/Values vary from family to family); Gov. has no right to enforce its judgments/decisions unilaterally upon their citizens.
2. Counterproductive
A. No Need
Alternatives could be taken into practice instead of problematic, harmful separation: Marital counseling, rehabilitation, anger management, and legal actions, house arrest, wrist/ankle tracking devices – all impossible when SEPARATED, whether it is permanent or not.
Ex) Several governmental and non-governmental organisations in the region provide medical, legal and counselling services for victims of rape and domestic violence
Ex) Community-state partnerships on investigating domestic violence and providing assistance to victims.
Ex) Nova Southeastern University study stated that marital counseling and anger management has been effective on improving the problems of domestic violence among couples.
Ex) Even simply arresting the abuser is an effective form of response: The study found that arrest reduced the rate by half of re-offending against the same victim within the following six months
+separation and many of alternatives are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
Several types of marital counseling/management require both subjects to be present.
B. Harmful
-Entire destruction of Family If the perpetrator is male, females and their children are often left economically insolvent and broke/ state takes no responsibility.
-Unstable, undesirable environment for children
Ex) Studies in the early 1980’s showed that children in repeat divorces earned lower grades and their peers rated them as less pleasant to be around
Ex) Compared to children from homes disrupted by death, children from divorced homes have more psychological problems.
Ex) A Child in a female-headed home is 10 times more likely to be beaten or murdered
Ex) Most victims of child molestation come from single-parent households or are the children of drug ring members
Ex) Seventy percent of long-term prison inmates grew up in broken homes.
Ex) Following divorce, children are fifty percent more likely to develop health problems than two parent families
Ex) Children of divorced parents are roughly two times more likely to drop out of high school than their peers who benefit from living with parents who did not divorce.
Ex) People who come from broken homes are almost twice as likely to attempt suicide than those who do not come from broken homes.
-Harmful for Partners(even victims)
Ex) 20 years after divorce, only 20 percent of individuals indicated that their lives had improved, while in 70 percent of cases, the individuals were in the same or worse emotional and social condition
Ex) Divorced adults are more susceptible to severe emotional and psychological problems, plus early death from an assortment of causes, than for married individuals. The suicide rate for divorced white men, for example, is four times higher than for their married counterparts
Ex) Divorced adults, particularly divorced men, experience early health problems to a much greater extent than married individuals
-Lack of Economic Independencepoverty
Ex) In addition to lacking financial resources, victims of DV often lack specialized skills, education, and training that are necessary to find gainful employment, and also may have several children to support. In 2003, thirty-six major US cities cited DV as one of the primary causes of homelessness in their areas.[50] It has also been reported that one out of every three homeless women are homeless due to having left a DV relationship. If a victim is able to secure rental housing, it is likely that her apartment complex will have “zero tolerance” policies for crime; these policies can cause them to face eviction even if they are the victim (not the perpetrator) of violence.[50] While the number of shelters and community resources available to DV victims has grown tremendously, these agencies often have few employees and hundreds of victims seeking assistance which causes many victims to remain without the assistance they need.
Ex) According to federal statistics, 22% of divorced female retirees live in poverty
Ex) Single mothers are nine times more likely to live in deep poverty than the married family, with incomes less than half of the official poverty line.
Ex) "Four times as many divorced women with children fell under the poverty line [as did] married women with children."
Ex) Single women are 5 times more likely to be poor than their married sisters."
-What about the perpetrators?
Yes, they may have commited a crime, but they are still a member of the family. No chance for apology, improvement-gov. officers rage in and simply separate my family from me? WHAT? My proper punishment should be jail-sentence or sth. Under the judicial system, not deprivation of my position as a member of family. THERE IS NO SUCH THING UNDER OUR LEGAL SYSTEM.
It’s not like once you’ve made a mistake, you’re never given a second chance/ nor the gov. is authorized to take everything away from you/make decisions for your family.
Ex) Protection Order: Reports indicate some 86% of the women who received a protection order state the abuse either stopped or was greatly reduced. (Dangerous)
3. Impractical
*Logic: The gov.’s proposal simply lacks any practicality.
A. Standards
-What Standards? Ambiguous, subjective from case-to-case
Ex) Another important issue in assessing clients for DV lies in differing definitions of abuse – the therapist’s definition may differ from that of the client, and paying close attention to the way the client describes their experiences is crucial in developing effective treatment plans. The therapist must determine if it is in the best interest of the client to explain that some behaviors (such as emotional abuse) are considered domestic violence, even if she did not previously consider them as such.
Susceptive to abuse, possibility of innocent victims. What is D.V and what is not? Who is to decide?
B. Result
-Hardly any effect (Because underreported)
-Solves nothing: separation doesn’t mean the abuser will be chasing, stalking the victim.
• Ex) 59% of female victims and 30% of male victims are stalked by an intimate/ex- partners
• Ex) If stalking involves intimate partners, the average duration of stalking increases to 2.2 years
-After separation without consent, if the couples don’t want to be separated wouldn’t they go back? How is the government going to stop that/ is that possible?
1. If separation isn’t lock-up, solves NOTHINGWaste of money+resource
2. If separation is lock-up, then we have some serious issues.
Don’t they require treatment? (psychologically unstable) But you’ll lock them up? That is unfair; people who need medical assistance and help aren’t responsible for crimes.
What about the jobs, the housing of the perpetrator?
On what basis/grounds?
Does the government seriously have any funding to do so?
-Exacerbated situation, detrimental for all.
Additional Facts
Ex) A six-month longitudinal study, found that among 65 abused African-American, White, Hispanic, and Asian women applying and qualifying for a protection order against a sexual intimate, only half of the women actually received the order.
Ex) Anger management alone has not been shown to be effective in treating domestic violence offenders, as domestic violence is based on power and control and not on problems with regulating anger responses
A. Evidence
-Extremely rare, unlikely when concrete evidence is discovered. (Especially in verbal/emotional abuse while alternatives are effective in improving these issues.)
Ex) Emotional abuse (also called psychological abuse or mental abuse) can include humiliating the victim privately or publicly, controlling what the victim can and cannot do, withholding information from the victim, deliberately doing something to make the victim feel diminished or embarrassed/ Verbal abuse is a form of abusive behavior involving the use of language Extremely hard to prove and accuse. Often overlooked
-Then how will state get evidence?
I. State relies on no evidence, only based on gossip: Forced divorce with no real evidence? Forced punishment and criminalization of a citizen with no evidence? Proposition has dug its own grave.
II. State relies on self-report
Most unlikely to happen, because subjects are reluctant to report and dependent/vulnerable, maybe even brainwashed
Ex) Battered Women’s Syndrome: Most often, victim of domestic abuse do not act because they believe that THEY may be the cause of the problem. This is a reference to any person who, because of constant and severe domestic violence usually involving physical abuse by a partner, may become depressed and/or unable to take any independent action that would allow him or her to escape the abuse. The condition explains why abused people may not seek assistance from others, fight their abuser, or leave the abusive situation. Sufferers may have low self-esteem, and are often led to believe that the abuse is their fault
Ex) They also may still think they love their abuser (Stockholm Syndrome)
Ex) Cycle of Abuse: vicious cycle where there is more abuse, more silence, and more inaction… Then, already under such severe mental pressure, do these victims have any REAL CHOICE in the matter? Can they indeed be rational enough to do the right thing and REPORT their abuser? No.
Ex) Only about a third of cases of domestic violence are actually reported in the United States and the United Kingdom
Ex) Research shows women, who are most dependent on the spouse for economic well being (e.g. homemakers/housewives, women with handicaps, the unemployed), and are the primary caregiver to their children, fear the increased financial burden if they leave their marriage.
Ex) About half of the male victims' reasons and a third of the female victims' reasons for not reporting their intimate partner victimization to the police was because it was a "private or personal matter
III. State relies on doctors in hospitals to report signs of physical abuse:
-Victims may NOT want to be forcibly separated without consent
-If doctors start reporting to the government about physical symptoms of abuse, real victims of domestic violence may feel it is unsafe to go to the hospital for treatment. They may start avoiding hospitals, even when they need to go. The victim is even further marginalized and cannot seek treatment for their wounds. They victim is even further disempowered and left choice-less. Proposition makes life more difficult for them.
- Invoke the Hippocrates oath, and reasons why doctors uphold promises concerning privacy of the patients. This is doctor-patient privilege that should be considered sacrosanct from unjust state laws that marginalize possible victims. (Also, by law, state cannot violate that privilege)
- ALSO, for NONVICTIMS, it would be highly humiliating and unnecessary if they were reported as victims when they are NOT. (Especially because people tend to think women are victims, then women would feel marginalized and doctors, by reporting more women than men, would be REINFORCING an evil sterotype and therefore marginalizing the entire female population with their subconscious double standards. (responding differently to scars on men’s faces and women’s faces/)
- ALSO, in the case that hospitals over-report: Limited legal resources and police attention could be wasted that could have been utilized in numerous cases that ARE REAL and DO EXIST.
-Ex) Ninety-two percent of women who were physically abused by their partners did not discuss these incidents with their physicians; 57% did not discuss the incidents with anyone. Additionally, in four different studies of survivors of abuse, 70% to 81% of the patients studied reported that they would like their healthcare providers to ask them privately about intimate partner violence
Motion: THBT the state has the right to separate married couples in cases of domestic violence without the consent of the victim
(Government)
OPENING: Status Quo on D.V (Or after definition…)
A. Dominant (epidemical)
Ex) Approximately 2.1 million people are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States.
B. Detrimental
Ex) Forms of abuse in domestic violence have the potential to lead to mental illness, self-harm, and even attempts at suicide.
Ex) Domestic violence not only causes physical harms, but also threatens, intimidates, undermines the victim’s self-worth or self-esteem, or controls the victim’s freedom.
Ex)
-Physical
Bruises, broken bones, head injuries, lacerations, and internal bleeding are some of the acute effects of a domestic violence incident that require medical attention and hospitalization.
D.V leads to deaths! (+suicide)
Ex) Twenty-nine percent of all women who attempt suicide were battered,
-Psychological
In addition to depression, victims of domestic violence also commonly experience long-term anxiety and panic, and are likely to meet the diagnostic criteria for Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Panic Disorder. The most commonly referenced psychological effect of domestic violence is Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
Ex) Fifty-six percent of women who experience partner violence are diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder
Definition:
*State has the right: A politically stable and economically sufficient government has the legitimate/justified power/authority and should exercise the power.
*Separate: To temporarily divide by legal/executive force (In other words, make couples to divorce)
*Married Couples: Heterosexual Couples with who compose a family unit together.
*In Cases of Domestic Violence: When extreme/severe degrees of violence frequently occur within a family unit that is likely to cause physical/psychological damages to family members. (In forms of physical aggression (hitting, kicking, biting, shoving, restraining, slapping, throwing objects), or threats thereof; sexual abuse; emotional abuse; controlling or domineering)
*Consent of the Victim: The agreement or recognition of the victim/subject of violence
*Policy: When clear/tangential evidence of domestic violence such as signs of Actual Injuries/Wounds/Psychological Damages caused by the abuser has been discovered, we would:
1. Unconditionally separate the married couples for a certain amount of time (minimum 6 months) During the separation period, the government will track the location of the perpetrator with GPS and make sure that the offender doesn’t go anywhere near the victim.
2. (The government) would provide all necessary economical/medical assistance required for managing independent life+ rehabilitation for both victim/perpetrator.
3. After the experiencing independent life, we would then grant the victim a choice to reunite or separate permanently. (However, at this state the victim should be proved to be psychologically stable/sane Recovered mental health) Afterwards, we would also provide assistance to the victim to make her/him supportive of her/himself. Finding jobs, job education for required skills, etc.
4. The custody of the children will be given to the victim because helpful for victim+children/ victims tend to be caring for their children.
We believe the gov. has the authority, or even a duty to intervene because:
A. This is a criminal case-violence is a crime under federal law.
B. They have a duty to protect their citizens’ health/welfare/life especially when they are powerless and vulnerable. Ex) Like taking away custody of children from problematic parents. (without consent) Gov. Actions legitimate, justified.
+However, in the status quo, law enforcements are proven to be ineffective, so we want to implement a more effective measure.
Ex) Criminologists mention that deterrent effects of law enforcement do not last over time. If the victim is uncooperative during investigation, the prosecutor may choose not to pursue the case.[143] If the case is pursued through the criminal justice system, sometimes the resulting sentence is minor. Subsequently, any fear that the abuser has of punishment may have diminished
Then, The victims were less likely to call or trust law enforcement during the next incident of domestic abuse.
Men are often more responsible for domestic violence
Ex) Review of the research Michael Kimmel found that more than 90 percent of "systematic, persistent, and injurious" domestic violence is perpetrated by men (입증할 필요가 있으면 할 것.)
Steps of Analysis
Show Need->Benefit->Practicality
1. Urgent Need (중요!!! Without Consent 할 만큼) for policy
*Logic: There is an urgent need for this policy because
(+problem is serious)
1. The victims of D.V are reluctant, AFRAID to report!
a. Psychological influence/Dependency/Mental Problems
b. Fear for independent life/tearing the family up: What about the children?
c. Economical Concerns
They are threatened, dominated with these issues and are made mute even when they are being abused: they are not in the psychologically sound/fine state to act for themselves or they are scared of other reasons that separation might pose upon them. We the government would like to give them PROPER INFORMATION/NECESSARY SUPPORT/INDEPENDENT TIME AWAY FROM THE PERPETRATOR so that they can make a rational, logical decision that they think is best for them.
2. OUR POLICY MOST EFFECTIVELY ADDRESSES THE PROBLEM
Victims are dependent, influenced by abuser.
Ex) Battered Women’s Syndrome: Most often, victim of domestic abuse do not act because they believe that THEY may be the cause of the problem. This is a reference to any person who, because of constant and severe domestic violence usually involving physical abuse by a partner, may become depressed and/or unable to take any independent action that would allow him or her to escape the abuse. The condition explains why abused people may not seek assistance from others, fight their abuser, or leave the abusive situation. Sufferers may have low self-esteem, and are often led to believe that the abuse is their fault
Ex) Cycle of Abuse: vicious cycle where there is more abuse, more silence, and more inaction… Then, already under such severe mental pressure, do these victims have any REAL CHOICE in the matter? Can they indeed be rational enough to do the right thing and REPORT their abuser? No.
Lenore Walker presented the model of a Cycle of abuse which consists of three basic phases:
Tension Building Phase
Characterized by poor communication, tension, fear of causing outbursts. During this stage the victims try to calm the abuser down, to avoid any major violent confrontations.
Violent Episode
Characterized by outbursts of violent, abusive incidents. During this stage the abuser attempts to dominate his/her partner(victim), with the use of domestic violence.
Honeymoon Phase
Characterized by affection, apology, and apparent end of violence. During this stage the abuser feels overwhelming feelings of remorse and sadness. Some abusers walk away from the situation, while others shower their victims with love and affection.
Ex) Research shows women, who are most dependent on the spouse for economic well being (e.g. homemakers/housewives, women with handicaps, the unemployed), and are the primary caregiver to their children, fear the increased financial burden if they leave their marriage.
Continues as long as victim is with perpetrator.//So once detected, seperation is required.
Our policy most effectively addresses the problem in the status quo (is needed) essential, inevitable
*Because as mentioned above
1. The victims of domestic violence are likely to be under the influence/coercion of the perpetrator (physically threatened)/(psychologically unstable/dependent: for economic reasons or children)in an impotent state, cannot make the right decision.
2. Domestic violence has a high possibility to re-occur
3. Domestic violence is serious.
Immediate solution to protect the victim from any more serious violence. Perpetrators may need help with their behavior. (Requirement for Separation with Rehabilitation)
Giving the victim choice at a SANE, CLEAR state of mind and let them choose what is best for them. (Requirement for Healthy Psychological State)
Provide both with experience of independence with economic stability (Requirement for a chance to experience an independent life with economic assistance.)
2. Tangible Benefits
*Logic: When this separation actually takes place, there will be practical benefits.
A. For Victims
Immediate action (Secure safety, save lives)
Victims are exposed to severe, life threatening violence: RESCUE!
Provides them with a more fair/appropriate opportunity for choice (WE ACTUALLY RESPECT RIGHT OF CHOICE)!!
Most of the cases, victims of D.V are likely to suffer any form of psychological disability or other symptoms. Even if they are not, they could be bound to an undesirable marriage because they fear economic/mental independence. Anyway, they could not be in the exact sound and best condition to decide what is best for them. With our policy, such victims are given the FAIR OPPORTUNITY of choice for their happiness after they receive necessary help and assistance and are recovered to a good state. +Proper information about their status quo (Ex: The actions they could take when D.V recurs, understanding of what happened, psychological advice)
IGNORING POWERLESS PEOPLE WHO AREN’T EVEN CAPABLE OF MAKING CHOICES THAT ARE BEST FOR THEM (WITH MENTAL ISSUES) ISN’T EXACTLY THE BEST WAY THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD RESPOND/ NOT TRULY RESPECTING THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE
Ex) Mental hospitals (Do not give pathological mental patients the choice to run around and hurt/kill themselves or others)
Ex) Prohibiting teenagers from tobacco, alcohol (Do not allow impressionable, immature teenagers to get addicted to harmful substances)
Because freedom of choice should be given to only those who are capable to rationally consider and agonize about their future and be responsible for their decisions.-> In a sound state of mind.
B. For Perpetrators
Perpetrators could be suffering from psychological issues, too. With government intervention, they can receive proper treatment for rehabilitation away from someone he or she used to abuse, which will make them recognize the importance of the family members and truly remorse their faults.
Ex) In general, about 80% of both court-referred and self-referred men in these domestic violence studies exhibited diagnosable psychopathology, typically personality disorders which means they are susceptible of exercising violence again and again (unstable)
C. For Children(x bad example for children, no passing-on of crime)
Even affects children/violence passes onto generations.
Ex) Social learning theory suggests that people learn from observing and modeling after others' behavior. With positive reinforcement, the behavior continues. If one observes violent behavior, one is more likely to imitate it. If there are no negative consequences (e. g. victim accepts the violence, with submission), then the behavior will likely continue. Often, violence is transmitted from generation to generation in a cyclical manner
Ex) Several studies have shown that maternal interpersonal violence-related posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can, despite traumatized mother's best efforts, interfere with their child's response to the domestic violence and other traumatic events
Bad for children overall.
Ex) In 2009, it was estimated that as many as 7 to 14 million children are exposed to domestic violence, falling victim to its effects in the United States.[1] Many children who witness domestic violence in the home believe that they are to blame, and live in a constant state of fear. These children also fall victim to physical abuse, as well. It has been shown that in families where domestic violence is present, child abuse is 15 times more likely to occur
Ex) Behavioral, social, and emotional problems: higher levels of aggression, anger, hostility, oppositional behavior, and disobedience; fear, anxiety, withdrawal, and depression; poor peer, sibling, and social relationships; low self-esteem.
Cognitive and attitudinal problems: lower cognitive functioning, poor school performance, lack of conflict resolution skills, limited problem-solving skills, acceptance of violent behaviors and attitudes, belief in rigid gender stereotypes and male privilege.
Long-term problems: higher levels of adult depression and trauma symptoms, increased tolerance for and use of violence in adult relationships.
all problems of children who are exposed to violent environment at homes.
3. Practical Solution
{When domestic violence is discovered in various circumstances, such as self-report/report by witnesses or neighbors/police investigations/notification by doctor or NGOs the government can take immediate action. (We are talking about the cases being discovered, not our burden to prove most of the actual cases are reported because just by even resolving the matters effectively when D.Vs are reported, still is substantial solution+report will increase based on its outcome.)
Ex) The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) indicates that in 1998 about 876,340 violent domestic crimes were reported in the U.S
Ex) According to the Department of Justice:
• Approximately 60% of family violence victimizations were reported to police between 1998 and 2002, up from about half between 1993 and 1998. } <- Report Rate 갖고 딴지걸면 반박! *Logic: Our policy (Government Intervention) is the only method that will be effective and actually work. Effective Ex) Emergency Protection Order (with consent of the victim) It can give the victim: • exclusive occupation of the home, up to 30 days It can give temporary care and custody of a child to the victim or another person. It can direct a peace officer, such as the police to: • remove the respondent from the home It can direct the person against whom the order is made: • to stay away from any place identified in the order • not to contact the victim or another person (Another form of Separation) Immediate effect(concrete): Reports indicate some 86% of the women who received a protection order state the abuse either stopped or was greatly reduced. Not likely to occur again A. If victim chooses separation, then new life with other partners. B. If victim chooses reunification, the victim is likely to be equipped with proper information and a sound mental state/perpetrator went through process of rehab. Possibility for recurrence decreases. Benefits: May consume a little more money, but FUNDAMENTAL SOLUTION/PREVENTION OF RECURRENCE if this prob. is solved, in long-term, we won’t have to invest any more resources: beneficial +THAT’s WHAT TAXES ARE MEANT FOR, CITIZEN WELFARE and RESOLVING SERIOUS PROBLEMS OF SOCIETY Increase report-rate: Once the effect of policy is proven, then more and more people will believe in government aid and call for help. Gov. authority, credibility increase.
*Team Value: Choice, Realistic Solutions
*The word ‘victim’ does not necessarily mean ‘women’.
*The punishment could be deemed as unfair and improper- under our legal code, there is no such punishment like enforcing divorce (Tearing up families).
The case is based on the definition of separation as permanent. If gov. asserts differently, we simply can argue the problems will happen again.
Studies indicate temporary separation may be an effective solution at first, but its effects eventually decline and become ineffective as time progresses and when the same measure is repeated.
1. Disempowerment of Victim (Freedom of Choice)
*Logic: The government side’s policy not only disregards the rights of the individuals and freedom of choice, but it directly leads to the disempowerment of the victim making the abused even more powerless and dependent. The gov. is making decisions on perhaps the most important issue of the victim’s life, but they will do so even without their agreement? What the proposition is suggesting is absurd: they would like to solve the problem of victims being swayed by abusers often in power by simply shifting the control to another entity. Still, the victims do not have any control of their life, their opinions are disrespected, and they are as impotent as they were before the gov’s intrusion. (Stripped of their lives)
If Gov. policy disregards victim choice who are already powerless, GAME OVER. Who does respect the victim, their voice?
Families (Victims) could have their own way of living or solving problems (Standards/Values vary from family to family); Gov. has no right to enforce its judgments/decisions unilaterally upon their citizens.
2. Counterproductive
A. No Need
Alternatives could be taken into practice instead of problematic, harmful separation: Marital counseling, rehabilitation, anger management, and legal actions, house arrest, wrist/ankle tracking devices – all impossible when SEPARATED, whether it is permanent or not.
Ex) Several governmental and non-governmental organisations in the region provide medical, legal and counselling services for victims of rape and domestic violence
Ex) Community-state partnerships on investigating domestic violence and providing assistance to victims.
Ex) Nova Southeastern University study stated that marital counseling and anger management has been effective on improving the problems of domestic violence among couples.
Ex) Even simply arresting the abuser is an effective form of response: The study found that arrest reduced the rate by half of re-offending against the same victim within the following six months
+separation and many of alternatives are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
Several types of marital counseling/management require both subjects to be present.
B. Harmful
-Entire destruction of Family If the perpetrator is male, females and their children are often left economically insolvent and broke/ state takes no responsibility.
-Unstable, undesirable environment for children
Ex) Studies in the early 1980’s showed that children in repeat divorces earned lower grades and their peers rated them as less pleasant to be around
Ex) Compared to children from homes disrupted by death, children from divorced homes have more psychological problems.
Ex) A Child in a female-headed home is 10 times more likely to be beaten or murdered
Ex) Most victims of child molestation come from single-parent households or are the children of drug ring members
Ex) Seventy percent of long-term prison inmates grew up in broken homes.
Ex) Following divorce, children are fifty percent more likely to develop health problems than two parent families
Ex) Children of divorced parents are roughly two times more likely to drop out of high school than their peers who benefit from living with parents who did not divorce.
Ex) People who come from broken homes are almost twice as likely to attempt suicide than those who do not come from broken homes.
-Harmful for Partners(even victims)
Ex) 20 years after divorce, only 20 percent of individuals indicated that their lives had improved, while in 70 percent of cases, the individuals were in the same or worse emotional and social condition
Ex) Divorced adults are more susceptible to severe emotional and psychological problems, plus early death from an assortment of causes, than for married individuals. The suicide rate for divorced white men, for example, is four times higher than for their married counterparts
Ex) Divorced adults, particularly divorced men, experience early health problems to a much greater extent than married individuals
-Lack of Economic Independencepoverty
Ex) In addition to lacking financial resources, victims of DV often lack specialized skills, education, and training that are necessary to find gainful employment, and also may have several children to support. In 2003, thirty-six major US cities cited DV as one of the primary causes of homelessness in their areas.[50] It has also been reported that one out of every three homeless women are homeless due to having left a DV relationship. If a victim is able to secure rental housing, it is likely that her apartment complex will have “zero tolerance” policies for crime; these policies can cause them to face eviction even if they are the victim (not the perpetrator) of violence.[50] While the number of shelters and community resources available to DV victims has grown tremendously, these agencies often have few employees and hundreds of victims seeking assistance which causes many victims to remain without the assistance they need.
Ex) According to federal statistics, 22% of divorced female retirees live in poverty
Ex) Single mothers are nine times more likely to live in deep poverty than the married family, with incomes less than half of the official poverty line.
Ex) "Four times as many divorced women with children fell under the poverty line [as did] married women with children."
Ex) Single women are 5 times more likely to be poor than their married sisters."
-What about the perpetrators?
Yes, they may have commited a crime, but they are still a member of the family. No chance for apology, improvement-gov. officers rage in and simply separate my family from me? WHAT? My proper punishment should be jail-sentence or sth. Under the judicial system, not deprivation of my position as a member of family. THERE IS NO SUCH THING UNDER OUR LEGAL SYSTEM.
It’s not like once you’ve made a mistake, you’re never given a second chance/ nor the gov. is authorized to take everything away from you/make decisions for your family.
Ex) Protection Order: Reports indicate some 86% of the women who received a protection order state the abuse either stopped or was greatly reduced. (Dangerous)
3. Impractical
*Logic: The gov.’s proposal simply lacks any practicality.
A. Standards
-What Standards? Ambiguous, subjective from case-to-case
Ex) Another important issue in assessing clients for DV lies in differing definitions of abuse – the therapist’s definition may differ from that of the client, and paying close attention to the way the client describes their experiences is crucial in developing effective treatment plans. The therapist must determine if it is in the best interest of the client to explain that some behaviors (such as emotional abuse) are considered domestic violence, even if she did not previously consider them as such.
Susceptive to abuse, possibility of innocent victims. What is D.V and what is not? Who is to decide?
B. Result
-Hardly any effect (Because underreported)
-Solves nothing: separation doesn’t mean the abuser will be chasing, stalking the victim.
• Ex) 59% of female victims and 30% of male victims are stalked by an intimate/ex- partners
• Ex) If stalking involves intimate partners, the average duration of stalking increases to 2.2 years
-After separation without consent, if the couples don’t want to be separated wouldn’t they go back? How is the government going to stop that/ is that possible?
1. If separation isn’t lock-up, solves NOTHINGWaste of money+resource
2. If separation is lock-up, then we have some serious issues.
Don’t they require treatment? (psychologically unstable) But you’ll lock them up? That is unfair; people who need medical assistance and help aren’t responsible for crimes.
What about the jobs, the housing of the perpetrator?
On what basis/grounds?
Does the government seriously have any funding to do so?
-Exacerbated situation, detrimental for all.
Additional Facts
Ex) A six-month longitudinal study, found that among 65 abused African-American, White, Hispanic, and Asian women applying and qualifying for a protection order against a sexual intimate, only half of the women actually received the order.
Ex) Anger management alone has not been shown to be effective in treating domestic violence offenders, as domestic violence is based on power and control and not on problems with regulating anger responses
A. Evidence
-Extremely rare, unlikely when concrete evidence is discovered. (Especially in verbal/emotional abuse while alternatives are effective in improving these issues.)
Ex) Emotional abuse (also called psychological abuse or mental abuse) can include humiliating the victim privately or publicly, controlling what the victim can and cannot do, withholding information from the victim, deliberately doing something to make the victim feel diminished or embarrassed/ Verbal abuse is a form of abusive behavior involving the use of language Extremely hard to prove and accuse. Often overlooked
-Then how will state get evidence?
I. State relies on no evidence, only based on gossip: Forced divorce with no real evidence? Forced punishment and criminalization of a citizen with no evidence? Proposition has dug its own grave.
II. State relies on self-report
Most unlikely to happen, because subjects are reluctant to report and dependent/vulnerable, maybe even brainwashed
Ex) Battered Women’s Syndrome: Most often, victim of domestic abuse do not act because they believe that THEY may be the cause of the problem. This is a reference to any person who, because of constant and severe domestic violence usually involving physical abuse by a partner, may become depressed and/or unable to take any independent action that would allow him or her to escape the abuse. The condition explains why abused people may not seek assistance from others, fight their abuser, or leave the abusive situation. Sufferers may have low self-esteem, and are often led to believe that the abuse is their fault
Ex) They also may still think they love their abuser (Stockholm Syndrome)
Ex) Cycle of Abuse: vicious cycle where there is more abuse, more silence, and more inaction… Then, already under such severe mental pressure, do these victims have any REAL CHOICE in the matter? Can they indeed be rational enough to do the right thing and REPORT their abuser? No.
Ex) Only about a third of cases of domestic violence are actually reported in the United States and the United Kingdom
Ex) Research shows women, who are most dependent on the spouse for economic well being (e.g. homemakers/housewives, women with handicaps, the unemployed), and are the primary caregiver to their children, fear the increased financial burden if they leave their marriage.
Ex) About half of the male victims' reasons and a third of the female victims' reasons for not reporting their intimate partner victimization to the police was because it was a "private or personal matter
III. State relies on doctors in hospitals to report signs of physical abuse:
-Victims may NOT want to be forcibly separated without consent
-If doctors start reporting to the government about physical symptoms of abuse, real victims of domestic violence may feel it is unsafe to go to the hospital for treatment. They may start avoiding hospitals, even when they need to go. The victim is even further marginalized and cannot seek treatment for their wounds. They victim is even further disempowered and left choice-less. Proposition makes life more difficult for them.
- Invoke the Hippocrates oath, and reasons why doctors uphold promises concerning privacy of the patients. This is doctor-patient privilege that should be considered sacrosanct from unjust state laws that marginalize possible victims. (Also, by law, state cannot violate that privilege)
- ALSO, for NONVICTIMS, it would be highly humiliating and unnecessary if they were reported as victims when they are NOT. (Especially because people tend to think women are victims, then women would feel marginalized and doctors, by reporting more women than men, would be REINFORCING an evil sterotype and therefore marginalizing the entire female population with their subconscious double standards. (responding differently to scars on men’s faces and women’s faces/)
- ALSO, in the case that hospitals over-report: Limited legal resources and police attention could be wasted that could have been utilized in numerous cases that ARE REAL and DO EXIST.
-Ex) Ninety-two percent of women who were physically abused by their partners did not discuss these incidents with their physicians; 57% did not discuss the incidents with anyone. Additionally, in four different studies of survivors of abuse, 70% to 81% of the patients studied reported that they would like their healthcare providers to ask them privately about intimate partner violence
Full Case on the Motion: THW cut all aids to North Korea
This is a full opposition case I produced for the purpose of e-mailing it to a newspaper that asked me for this article. I thought it would be a good idea to share this on my blog too :)
THW Cut All Aid to North Korea-Opposition KMLA
According to the research produced by the Korea Rural Economic Institute, 2 million people in North Korea depend their lives annually on the humanitarian aids supplied by the South Korean government. That means 2 million people in North Korea rely their lives on the materialistic support we provide, such as grains, processed food, clothing, fuel, fertilizers and etc. South Korean aids appropriated 29% of North Korea’s food shortages during 2000-2008, which saved millions of lives and rescued the country out of its most difficult times. Not only that, but the provisionment was also proven to have beneficial effects on stabilizing and vitalizing Korean economical industries. Today, in this debate, we have a proposition, who is proposing to cut all these humanitarian aids given to our brotherhood nation, and exterminate all the benefits the policy has along with it-letting the 2 million starve to death and the industries of South Korea to fall. Our side of the house strongly believes that cutting aid, stopping support, will only trigger detrimental harms to both Koreas and the world, economically and diplomatically, and therefore that the motion should not stand.
On this side of the house, we have three clear arguments to support our stance of the opposition. First, the cutting of all aids will exacerbate the relationships between South and North Korea. Second, the implementation of the Government’s plan will have negative aftermaths on the citizens of North Korea and the economic industries in South Korea. Third, infringement on rights upon people who are willing to provide humanitarian aids will occur when this policy takes place. And along with all these reasons, the opposition side suggests a practical alternative policy that could improve the conditions in status quo and nevertheless evade much of the dire harms and risks of the radical policy the proposition is presenting. We think if the South Korean government only provides aids under specific conditions, demanding the North Korean regime to produce and disclose transparent, credible reports of the usages and distribution of the given aid, the effectiveness of aids will improve dramatically and the practicality issue the Government was so worried about would be dealt with. If North Korea fails to meet such conditions, sanctions on materials other than basic necessities, such as in military equipment could be implemented or even accusations in the International Court could take place as an effective measures for retribution.
So without further due, let’s proceed to the first substantiative argument of our side. However, before doing so, let’s consider why past Korean administrations have constantly delivered aid to North Korea. For past decades, South Korea had experienced major difficulties itself, and countless citizens residing within the nation are still starving to death, lingering in poverty. However, despite these issues, Korea has periodically sent aids to North Korea, because the aid was a “symbol”-a symbol of anticipation towards open communication and peaceful reunification. The assistance was sending out a significant message, that South Korea cares and has compassion in its neighbor’s hardships, and possesses a resolute will to renew communications and strengthen the bond between the Koreas. If our government, all of a sudden, cut all aids, it will send out a message both to North Korea and the world that South Korea no longer has that will-the will to continue conversation. The government's hasty actions of cutting all aids will severely increase the diplomatic tensions in the Korean peninsula, which will likely lead to further conflicts and disastrous results-even casualties. Especially in such sensitive eras for both Koreas and turbulent events occurring everywhere, including the major political transitions North Korea is experiencing with the new leader Kim Jong-il, the cornered-up-and-broke status of the North Korean economy, and military collisions in the Western Sea and regarding Chun-an Ham, -taking a radical stance and worsening the relationships with North Korea is the last position our government would want to take. Whether we truly mean it or not, stopping all support to North Korea will send out hostile messages and call for hostile responses, and so we think the Government’s policy should not take place.
However, we don’t think the consequences of the hasty extermination of aids will just end there; it will cause negative aftermaths on both the individual level of North Korea and national level of South Korea.
First, we recognize that the current situation in North Korea is highly unstable—more than 6 million need urgent food aid due to significant agricultural losses. South Korea has been providing the most significant aid to North Korea (around 500,000 tons of humanitarian aid up to 2008) annually to assist, and now 2 million of them depend their lives totally on South Korean aid. However, the proposition’s policy will stop all forms of South Korean help given to North Korea, which is a major part of the overall aid. Considering the status quo, we believe that if no effort is made to help, the North Korean regime will suffer and eventually collapse due to major food shortages leading to riots and uprisings. There are two significant foreseeable consequences to this crisis. The first is that there will be universal condemnation of South Korea’s attitude towards its once-united ‘brother nation’, from influential international organizations such as UN or NGOs in numerous nations. This condemnation might harm the image of our country in the international society and furthermore even do damage on the future diplomatic relationships with other nations. The second is that following the collapse of the North Korean government, serious turmoil would take place, refugees will cross the borderline into our country, and our nation would be forced to intervene to settle the chaos. What’s even more, is that other relatively powerful neighbor countries (such as China) will intervene and attempt to influence the country, exerting sovereign power. For South Korea, this situation is not only undesirable but it also seriously poses a threat to its national security, since chaos would erupt directly around us and China would expand its influence closer to our borderlines. (thus leaving South Korea to cope with the political and economic tangles). Our government would also have to take its role, to settle conflicts and stop China from being able to exert direct influence in a juxtaposed location with us. Instability that will be caused by the fall of the regime is definitely not something South Korea wants.
Another dire consequence of this policy is the economic loss in South Korea. Most of the materials shipped to North Korea (such as fertilizers or food) are produced directly by Korean companies and farmers. The sudden drop in these exports will inevitably result in a loss of income for these related parties, who had been dependant on the government funding involved in this process. Studies estimate the losses in revenue will reach up to approximately 600 billion won. This shows clearly that the implementation of this policy will result in losses not only for North Korea, but also for South Korea as well. To prevent such outcomes, we should think once again before imposing restrictions on all aids.
Lastly, we think the restricting all provisions of aid, including voluntary ones, is a clear violation of individual rights and freedom for South Koreans. A substantial portion of the aid delivered to North Korea is collected and donated voluntarily-up to 15% of the total support in 2002, by South Korean citizens who are willing to help their brethren. People choose to donate their property for diverse reasons-to help the suffering ones in North Korea or because of the loved ones they had left in the Northern region 65 years ago. However, whatever the cause is for their benevolent actions, the important point is that they “chose to do so”. Out of their humane compassion, they “chose” to donate their belongings, and they should have every right to do so; the government has no say. The freedom of these people to achieve their own purposes should be protected, and we believe it is wrong for the government to violate such freedom.
And for all these reasons, the opposition side has clearly shown to you why the motion should not stand.
On the other hand, many of the points that the Government side gave for the reasons to implement their policy are false and incorrect. First of all, unlike what the proposition would like us to believe, the purpose of the aid we provide to North Korea is not in any sort of a “reward” given to the autocratic regime, but it is to “SAVE THE PEOPLE”-just like the proposition recognized in their second argument. In other words, the aid is being delivered solely for “humanitarian” purposes-to save and rescue the starving, sick citizens of North Korea, and everybody is well aware of this truth, including the members of the opposing house. We think that hardly anyone with common sense in this world would misperceive the intentions of the “basic necessaries”. Next, the argument of the Government about how if we continue to send aids to North Korea, it will both reduce the burden of its government to feed the people and send out a wrongful message that our government accepts and condones all the misdemeanors of the regime, and therefore would lead to the solidification of it, is simply an exaggeration. First of all, the supplies we give to North Korea are not even close to being ABUNDANT or EXCESSIVE; it’s almost the minimum amount of basic goods to keep the North Korean citizens alive. The idea that these “necessary aids” would be sufficient enough to “solidify and reinforce the regime” is going way too far. Furthermore, it’s even more preposterous to think that such aids assist the creation of nuclear weapons or the expansion of military power, because the regime “FOCUSES ON SUCH ISSUES WITH AID OR WITHOUT AID”. Simply put, the North Korean government will spend its budget and invest its efforts to sustain their military capacity at any costs, and don’t care about the welfare of the mass-that’s what is happening in the status quo. So for the regime, the “priority” is their military power, which they will keep their focus concentrated on and which is an issue that will be unaffected by the existence of aids. Bottom line, the supplies we provide have no influence over North Korea’s military capacity whatsoever, and the only difference of its disappearance would be the increased pain and suffering of the North Korean people. Also, we don’t think the delivery of basic merchandise would be interpreted as “a sign of forgiveness” for the wrongdoings of North Korea, as the Government side would like to frame it. International criticisms will continue and sanctions on “un-basic necessities” could be implemented towards North Korea, functioning as moderate but firm measures that give out proper retributions to address North Korea’s faults. We think the radical policy presented by the opposing house will only generate radical responses; cornering the country up will intensify conflicts, which is extremely problematic. Lastly, we also think the government’s point about how the given aid does not reach the North Korean people is both factually incorrect and self-contradictory to their own case; even though some portion of the aid might be taken by corrupted parties or be wasted in irrelevant matters, we don’t think 100% OF EVERYTHING WE GIVE WILL COMPLETELY VANISH INTO THE AIR-a fair amount of the aids actually do reach the people and fulfill their original initiatives-as much as sustaining the lives of 2 million. Also, that is the reason why our side of the house suggested “specific conditions” to be added along to aids, such as the production of transparent reports that shows the usages of the given goods, to ensure the aids be used as we wished. Not only that, but moreover, we think that the government’s point on how “aids decrease the responsibility of the government to feed the people” contradicts their doubt on the North Korean citizen’s practical accessibility to these goods because they conceded to the fact that “AIDS FEED THE PEOPLE”. Therefore, as it is explained and as the opposing house even recognized, there is no question to whether provided supplies actually help the citizens and the argument has been clearly proven.
And for all these reasons, we’re extremely proud to oppose.
THW Cut All Aid to North Korea-Opposition KMLA
According to the research produced by the Korea Rural Economic Institute, 2 million people in North Korea depend their lives annually on the humanitarian aids supplied by the South Korean government. That means 2 million people in North Korea rely their lives on the materialistic support we provide, such as grains, processed food, clothing, fuel, fertilizers and etc. South Korean aids appropriated 29% of North Korea’s food shortages during 2000-2008, which saved millions of lives and rescued the country out of its most difficult times. Not only that, but the provisionment was also proven to have beneficial effects on stabilizing and vitalizing Korean economical industries. Today, in this debate, we have a proposition, who is proposing to cut all these humanitarian aids given to our brotherhood nation, and exterminate all the benefits the policy has along with it-letting the 2 million starve to death and the industries of South Korea to fall. Our side of the house strongly believes that cutting aid, stopping support, will only trigger detrimental harms to both Koreas and the world, economically and diplomatically, and therefore that the motion should not stand.
On this side of the house, we have three clear arguments to support our stance of the opposition. First, the cutting of all aids will exacerbate the relationships between South and North Korea. Second, the implementation of the Government’s plan will have negative aftermaths on the citizens of North Korea and the economic industries in South Korea. Third, infringement on rights upon people who are willing to provide humanitarian aids will occur when this policy takes place. And along with all these reasons, the opposition side suggests a practical alternative policy that could improve the conditions in status quo and nevertheless evade much of the dire harms and risks of the radical policy the proposition is presenting. We think if the South Korean government only provides aids under specific conditions, demanding the North Korean regime to produce and disclose transparent, credible reports of the usages and distribution of the given aid, the effectiveness of aids will improve dramatically and the practicality issue the Government was so worried about would be dealt with. If North Korea fails to meet such conditions, sanctions on materials other than basic necessities, such as in military equipment could be implemented or even accusations in the International Court could take place as an effective measures for retribution.
So without further due, let’s proceed to the first substantiative argument of our side. However, before doing so, let’s consider why past Korean administrations have constantly delivered aid to North Korea. For past decades, South Korea had experienced major difficulties itself, and countless citizens residing within the nation are still starving to death, lingering in poverty. However, despite these issues, Korea has periodically sent aids to North Korea, because the aid was a “symbol”-a symbol of anticipation towards open communication and peaceful reunification. The assistance was sending out a significant message, that South Korea cares and has compassion in its neighbor’s hardships, and possesses a resolute will to renew communications and strengthen the bond between the Koreas. If our government, all of a sudden, cut all aids, it will send out a message both to North Korea and the world that South Korea no longer has that will-the will to continue conversation. The government's hasty actions of cutting all aids will severely increase the diplomatic tensions in the Korean peninsula, which will likely lead to further conflicts and disastrous results-even casualties. Especially in such sensitive eras for both Koreas and turbulent events occurring everywhere, including the major political transitions North Korea is experiencing with the new leader Kim Jong-il, the cornered-up-and-broke status of the North Korean economy, and military collisions in the Western Sea and regarding Chun-an Ham, -taking a radical stance and worsening the relationships with North Korea is the last position our government would want to take. Whether we truly mean it or not, stopping all support to North Korea will send out hostile messages and call for hostile responses, and so we think the Government’s policy should not take place.
However, we don’t think the consequences of the hasty extermination of aids will just end there; it will cause negative aftermaths on both the individual level of North Korea and national level of South Korea.
First, we recognize that the current situation in North Korea is highly unstable—more than 6 million need urgent food aid due to significant agricultural losses. South Korea has been providing the most significant aid to North Korea (around 500,000 tons of humanitarian aid up to 2008) annually to assist, and now 2 million of them depend their lives totally on South Korean aid. However, the proposition’s policy will stop all forms of South Korean help given to North Korea, which is a major part of the overall aid. Considering the status quo, we believe that if no effort is made to help, the North Korean regime will suffer and eventually collapse due to major food shortages leading to riots and uprisings. There are two significant foreseeable consequences to this crisis. The first is that there will be universal condemnation of South Korea’s attitude towards its once-united ‘brother nation’, from influential international organizations such as UN or NGOs in numerous nations. This condemnation might harm the image of our country in the international society and furthermore even do damage on the future diplomatic relationships with other nations. The second is that following the collapse of the North Korean government, serious turmoil would take place, refugees will cross the borderline into our country, and our nation would be forced to intervene to settle the chaos. What’s even more, is that other relatively powerful neighbor countries (such as China) will intervene and attempt to influence the country, exerting sovereign power. For South Korea, this situation is not only undesirable but it also seriously poses a threat to its national security, since chaos would erupt directly around us and China would expand its influence closer to our borderlines. (thus leaving South Korea to cope with the political and economic tangles). Our government would also have to take its role, to settle conflicts and stop China from being able to exert direct influence in a juxtaposed location with us. Instability that will be caused by the fall of the regime is definitely not something South Korea wants.
Another dire consequence of this policy is the economic loss in South Korea. Most of the materials shipped to North Korea (such as fertilizers or food) are produced directly by Korean companies and farmers. The sudden drop in these exports will inevitably result in a loss of income for these related parties, who had been dependant on the government funding involved in this process. Studies estimate the losses in revenue will reach up to approximately 600 billion won. This shows clearly that the implementation of this policy will result in losses not only for North Korea, but also for South Korea as well. To prevent such outcomes, we should think once again before imposing restrictions on all aids.
Lastly, we think the restricting all provisions of aid, including voluntary ones, is a clear violation of individual rights and freedom for South Koreans. A substantial portion of the aid delivered to North Korea is collected and donated voluntarily-up to 15% of the total support in 2002, by South Korean citizens who are willing to help their brethren. People choose to donate their property for diverse reasons-to help the suffering ones in North Korea or because of the loved ones they had left in the Northern region 65 years ago. However, whatever the cause is for their benevolent actions, the important point is that they “chose to do so”. Out of their humane compassion, they “chose” to donate their belongings, and they should have every right to do so; the government has no say. The freedom of these people to achieve their own purposes should be protected, and we believe it is wrong for the government to violate such freedom.
And for all these reasons, the opposition side has clearly shown to you why the motion should not stand.
On the other hand, many of the points that the Government side gave for the reasons to implement their policy are false and incorrect. First of all, unlike what the proposition would like us to believe, the purpose of the aid we provide to North Korea is not in any sort of a “reward” given to the autocratic regime, but it is to “SAVE THE PEOPLE”-just like the proposition recognized in their second argument. In other words, the aid is being delivered solely for “humanitarian” purposes-to save and rescue the starving, sick citizens of North Korea, and everybody is well aware of this truth, including the members of the opposing house. We think that hardly anyone with common sense in this world would misperceive the intentions of the “basic necessaries”. Next, the argument of the Government about how if we continue to send aids to North Korea, it will both reduce the burden of its government to feed the people and send out a wrongful message that our government accepts and condones all the misdemeanors of the regime, and therefore would lead to the solidification of it, is simply an exaggeration. First of all, the supplies we give to North Korea are not even close to being ABUNDANT or EXCESSIVE; it’s almost the minimum amount of basic goods to keep the North Korean citizens alive. The idea that these “necessary aids” would be sufficient enough to “solidify and reinforce the regime” is going way too far. Furthermore, it’s even more preposterous to think that such aids assist the creation of nuclear weapons or the expansion of military power, because the regime “FOCUSES ON SUCH ISSUES WITH AID OR WITHOUT AID”. Simply put, the North Korean government will spend its budget and invest its efforts to sustain their military capacity at any costs, and don’t care about the welfare of the mass-that’s what is happening in the status quo. So for the regime, the “priority” is their military power, which they will keep their focus concentrated on and which is an issue that will be unaffected by the existence of aids. Bottom line, the supplies we provide have no influence over North Korea’s military capacity whatsoever, and the only difference of its disappearance would be the increased pain and suffering of the North Korean people. Also, we don’t think the delivery of basic merchandise would be interpreted as “a sign of forgiveness” for the wrongdoings of North Korea, as the Government side would like to frame it. International criticisms will continue and sanctions on “un-basic necessities” could be implemented towards North Korea, functioning as moderate but firm measures that give out proper retributions to address North Korea’s faults. We think the radical policy presented by the opposing house will only generate radical responses; cornering the country up will intensify conflicts, which is extremely problematic. Lastly, we also think the government’s point about how the given aid does not reach the North Korean people is both factually incorrect and self-contradictory to their own case; even though some portion of the aid might be taken by corrupted parties or be wasted in irrelevant matters, we don’t think 100% OF EVERYTHING WE GIVE WILL COMPLETELY VANISH INTO THE AIR-a fair amount of the aids actually do reach the people and fulfill their original initiatives-as much as sustaining the lives of 2 million. Also, that is the reason why our side of the house suggested “specific conditions” to be added along to aids, such as the production of transparent reports that shows the usages of the given goods, to ensure the aids be used as we wished. Not only that, but moreover, we think that the government’s point on how “aids decrease the responsibility of the government to feed the people” contradicts their doubt on the North Korean citizen’s practical accessibility to these goods because they conceded to the fact that “AIDS FEED THE PEOPLE”. Therefore, as it is explained and as the opposing house even recognized, there is no question to whether provided supplies actually help the citizens and the argument has been clearly proven.
And for all these reasons, we’re extremely proud to oppose.
2011년 4월 4일 월요일
30 days PM SPEECH
I just upload it since it had already been made in a txt. file
when you asked for it:)
THW ban the rehabilitation program for drug addicts in
prison
ban: exterminate, get rid of
rehab program: the rehabilitation program that is provided
to drug addicts for the purpose of improve and cure the
symptoms of addiction
prison: governmental facility where criminals get locked
up for the amount of sentence they were condemned to.
Policy: Create alternate facility out of prison with
special medical care/ limited amount of drugs prescribed
by the government to gradually decrease degree of
addiction
Arguments
A. Money/Space-->X any effectiveness
B. False Image
C. Better Choice
1. Ineffective
99% of the inmates return/extra money from the citizens
are spent to provide improved life conditions to rehab.
inmates such as better meals/ better facilities-->
Virtually meaningless, waste of money
Ex) Travis returned in less than 2 months.
2. False Image
projects government in an unfair/false POSITIVE image of
Gov. when they're actually not doing nothing
Ex) Spurlock described this program as some kind of
idealistic fantasy, as he was marveled by the system and
firmly believed that his friend, Travis, could certainly
benefit from this agenda --> He was mistaken: his friend
came back to the cursed facility in less than 2 months.
3. Alternative
Legalize Drugs in medical facilities where prisoners get
treated more like human with professional care and where
it can more effectively address the problem of addiction
Ex) In Netherland, already worked.
when you asked for it:)
THW ban the rehabilitation program for drug addicts in
prison
ban: exterminate, get rid of
rehab program: the rehabilitation program that is provided
to drug addicts for the purpose of improve and cure the
symptoms of addiction
prison: governmental facility where criminals get locked
up for the amount of sentence they were condemned to.
Policy: Create alternate facility out of prison with
special medical care/ limited amount of drugs prescribed
by the government to gradually decrease degree of
addiction
Arguments
A. Money/Space-->X any effectiveness
B. False Image
C. Better Choice
1. Ineffective
99% of the inmates return/extra money from the citizens
are spent to provide improved life conditions to rehab.
inmates such as better meals/ better facilities-->
Virtually meaningless, waste of money
Ex) Travis returned in less than 2 months.
2. False Image
projects government in an unfair/false POSITIVE image of
Gov. when they're actually not doing nothing
Ex) Spurlock described this program as some kind of
idealistic fantasy, as he was marveled by the system and
firmly believed that his friend, Travis, could certainly
benefit from this agenda --> He was mistaken: his friend
came back to the cursed facility in less than 2 months.
3. Alternative
Legalize Drugs in medical facilities where prisoners get
treated more like human with professional care and where
it can more effectively address the problem of addiction
Ex) In Netherland, already worked.
English as a "Secondary" Language-Not the First!
Honestly, I must admit: when I started watching this video, I wasn’t interested at all on this topic. Partly because I had little trouble in utilizing both my mother language and English whenever I wished and partly because I thought the problem being discussed on the video wasn’t as significant as it had been illustrated. Well, sure; languages vanishing worldwide are a sad thing to see, but so what? What if English really becomes the dominant language around the world along with only the languages that belong to the nations and ethnicities who TRULY VALUE their mother tongue and KNOWS HOW AND WHY TO RESPECT it? I mean, language was originally created to enable the communication between people who lived together, right? If people who were supposed to be utilizing the system of language their ancestors had invented do not practice or feel the need for the mother tongue any longer, and prefer to rather rely more on a more universal, practical language, then isn’t it perfectly natural for the tribal language to disappear? And even if it is not a natural phenomenon, do the people who own their own set of communication tools but chose not to preserve and value them even DESERVE such privileged gifts? Languages that are not being utilized, and furthermore disrespected or forgotten, SHOULD vanish away-No?
Well, in fact, as I watched the material little longer and thought more about the issue, I figured out the answer was, a kind of a “NO”. Not because language itself has the intrinsic value regarding its function of reflecting the cultural identity and ethnical spirits of its owners, therefore representing the pride of the users and bonding the people closely together-tightly as a group. And not even because the people do not have the responsibility of promoting the utilization of their own languages or they’re doing a good job at it. Rather, many of the owners of endangered languages are doing a miserable job on respecting their mother tongue and investing efforts to preserve it, although they clearly do possess the burden to sustain the legacy.
However, what I also realized was that the people who did a poor job on cherishing their language weren’t solely responsible for the catastrophic consequences they’ve encountered-the extinction of their linguistic systems; the responsibility, also laid on the English teachers and their nations, and even on the English-speaking population as a whole.
Simply think about it; without being able to speak English, a person is very likely to fall behind in the many of the intense competitions that he/she faces every day in the global society when compared to someone who is fluent at it. Along with the increase of usages of English, its importance and the value of its fluency rose concurrently. And for many of the people who now wish to participate and compete in the global market or at least become successful within the nation, especially for students and middle-aged office workers, studying and practicing English became a NECESSITY; not a choice or an option. Companies and schools require English test scores from TOEFL, TEPS, SAT, TOEIC to verify the applicant’s eligibility in English. Many of the nations include English in their school curriculums mandatorily. A substantial number of parents teach English to their children even before they get used to their mother language! The frenzy over the American language is outrageous, and it’s FORCING many of the people to be obsessed with English over many other important things. One of them is certainly the respect towards their ethnic language. The crazy pandemic is also a main cause for the phenomenon of putting the cart before the horse as well as individual negligence towards the native tongue.
Of course, as Mrs. Ryan admitted herself, English is a useful and influential language that is currently functioning as the universal tool for communication. Learning English is not only practical and beneficial for the individual, but it’s also better for the nation as a whole, as it increases the competitive power of the country. Mrs. Ryan mentions Einstein as an example of people who was brilliant and was recognized even without the assistance of English. However, the reason Einstein’s discoveries and achievements could be spread throughout the world is because it had been TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH. If it had not been understood by the majority of the people around the world, then who would have even realized the significance of his legacy? Somebody, WHO COULD USE ENGLISH FLUENTLY, was there for him to translate his papers and findings and others-so on and so forth.
However, the cart should never come before the horse. English is important, but never more than the first-hand language that rooted from the history of each nation’s. English should be respected as a “Secondary” language, but never as a devastative method that eradicates other cultural languages-“diversity”, as Mrs. Ryan puts it. And to make that happen, our change in attitudes and cognition toward the domination of the foreign language must occur as well as the increase in our individual responsibilities with our own.
Well, in fact, as I watched the material little longer and thought more about the issue, I figured out the answer was, a kind of a “NO”. Not because language itself has the intrinsic value regarding its function of reflecting the cultural identity and ethnical spirits of its owners, therefore representing the pride of the users and bonding the people closely together-tightly as a group. And not even because the people do not have the responsibility of promoting the utilization of their own languages or they’re doing a good job at it. Rather, many of the owners of endangered languages are doing a miserable job on respecting their mother tongue and investing efforts to preserve it, although they clearly do possess the burden to sustain the legacy.
However, what I also realized was that the people who did a poor job on cherishing their language weren’t solely responsible for the catastrophic consequences they’ve encountered-the extinction of their linguistic systems; the responsibility, also laid on the English teachers and their nations, and even on the English-speaking population as a whole.
Simply think about it; without being able to speak English, a person is very likely to fall behind in the many of the intense competitions that he/she faces every day in the global society when compared to someone who is fluent at it. Along with the increase of usages of English, its importance and the value of its fluency rose concurrently. And for many of the people who now wish to participate and compete in the global market or at least become successful within the nation, especially for students and middle-aged office workers, studying and practicing English became a NECESSITY; not a choice or an option. Companies and schools require English test scores from TOEFL, TEPS, SAT, TOEIC to verify the applicant’s eligibility in English. Many of the nations include English in their school curriculums mandatorily. A substantial number of parents teach English to their children even before they get used to their mother language! The frenzy over the American language is outrageous, and it’s FORCING many of the people to be obsessed with English over many other important things. One of them is certainly the respect towards their ethnic language. The crazy pandemic is also a main cause for the phenomenon of putting the cart before the horse as well as individual negligence towards the native tongue.
Of course, as Mrs. Ryan admitted herself, English is a useful and influential language that is currently functioning as the universal tool for communication. Learning English is not only practical and beneficial for the individual, but it’s also better for the nation as a whole, as it increases the competitive power of the country. Mrs. Ryan mentions Einstein as an example of people who was brilliant and was recognized even without the assistance of English. However, the reason Einstein’s discoveries and achievements could be spread throughout the world is because it had been TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH. If it had not been understood by the majority of the people around the world, then who would have even realized the significance of his legacy? Somebody, WHO COULD USE ENGLISH FLUENTLY, was there for him to translate his papers and findings and others-so on and so forth.
However, the cart should never come before the horse. English is important, but never more than the first-hand language that rooted from the history of each nation’s. English should be respected as a “Secondary” language, but never as a devastative method that eradicates other cultural languages-“diversity”, as Mrs. Ryan puts it. And to make that happen, our change in attitudes and cognition toward the domination of the foreign language must occur as well as the increase in our individual responsibilities with our own.
피드 구독하기:
글 (Atom)