Let’s start with what the possible criteria for acceptance are. There have been various cases with a similar tone: visa, passport, etc. So, it is established that there already are and have been parameters for acceptance. Now we have a different parameter being appealed for installation in the current status quo. This debate could be…
Geographical contexts might prove to be a (slight) problem in this debate, if not any. This pertains to the idea of patriarchal/matriarchal values that might differ in some middle-eastern countries and Islamic Sharia countries. Team Affirmative Argument 1: Because we would like to promote gender equality. Instead of this motion being an action of government…
The idea of investment is insertion or empowerment of capital, having a goal to yield more profit. Which side of the house returns more towards the government. So, motion dissection. Here goes. The Indonesian government (or other third world countries alike, for this case) should be facing pretty much the same issues among other agendas:…
*sigh* hate value-judgment debates using the word “regret” like this. Hate them. The reason why, is because there are multiple possible scenario and directions this kind of debates could unfold. The word regret is very ambiguous and opens numerous possible multi-interpretation. Hate it. For this motion, we will try to explore the two possible outcomes…
This.. is… difficult. Now, the only thing both teams need to know, and clarify, is that this setting takes the geographical context within a country. And as such, it is possible to have geographical bias where this motion is moral and practical to one country whilst being immoral and impractical at the same time towards…