1、1. THBT cooperation better than competition in promoting social advancement.正：cooperation is better than competitionEconomic globalization, During the APEC summit, Chinese president Xi Jinping and American president Barack Obama announced that their two nations would work to reduce greenhouse gases.
2、 反：cooperation is not better than competition.Without the competition between the 2. THW require all advertisers of medicines and health products to provide scientific evidence for their claims.正：medicines and health products反：advertisersPM LODPM DLOMG MOGW OWDPM:(Opening remarks: using the steps as
3、 shown in PPT )Mr. speaker, Members of the House, the leader of opposition today has told us that cooperation is not better than coopetition in promoting social advancement . But we think this will not work well. We shouldIn order to support our stance, today I will have one extension and one argume
4、nt. Firstly, I will prove the workability of our plan, and the argument cares about.But before that, I will give two rebuttals.(Substantiation)(I. Rebuttals )(repairing -orientated rebuttal)1.(refutation-orientated rebuttal) 2.(Extensions)(Challenging the burden of proof)(Thinking of new arguments)(
5、Conclusions)To sum up, today I have given two rebuttals:All those made our government side believe thatDLO:Mr. Speaker, members of the House, ladies and gentlemen:Comment S1: A preview of the arguments should be very listener-friendly.Comment S2: 没有总结第二个argument(Opening remarks)(Substantiation)As th
6、e Deputy Leader of Opposition today, I would like to divide my speech into three parts: first I would like to give two rebuttals, afterwards I would like to give my arguments, and finally my conclusion.(2 rebuttals)Here are my arguments.1.2.To conclude, as the DLO, I have claimed that medias supervi
7、sory function cannot be replaced easily, and I have explained why this policy “banning media coverage” is unnecessary and why the government would definitely pay high price if issuing the ban. Balancing the advantages and disadvantages, this house believes that we should not ban media coverage of ce
8、lebrities privacy. GW:Government Whip Speech(Opening remarks-Comment on the Principle Issues)Ladies and gentlemen, I regret to say that in this long-lasting debate we saw an opposition who overlooked the importance of celebrities right to privacy and the necessities of protecting this privacy. They
9、claimed that once a celebrity chose to step out into the public attention, he automatically agreed to give up his privacy right to fulfill the so-called “public duty”. Which is, in other words, since a celebrity has gained so much attention and money from his career, he should therefore be willing t
10、o sacrifice his right to satisfy media and his fellow citizens in return. Firstly, we do not think it is the celebrities public duty to give up his privacy right. Rather, it is the celebritys privacy that is most easily harmed and need to be protected. Secondly, we believe by protecting this privacy
11、 we can protect more people from potential harm and guide the society towards a better social value. I will prove these two points in my following speech.(Refutation)1.Government should provide weapons (allow media supervision) instead of taking Comment S3: Give a comment of this argument as a concl
12、usion: So thank you, member of opposition, what you said is exactly the same to our modelComment S4: Warrant is missing. 加上 They put more stress on the benefit of media coverage of celebrities privacy.Comment S5: Warrant is missing:加上 From the above contrast, it is quite obvious that media coverage
13、of celebrities privacy cant fulfill the duty of supervision effectively as the opposition bench wishes, but on the contrary, it brings about more harm. So we, government bench, win the necessity clash.Comment S6: the stateComment S7: 同上(coverage) rights away?Firstly, coverage right doesnt exist if i
14、t is about personal issues (privacy).Secondly, based on this claim, we can also safely draw to a conclusion that government should come up with policies and laws as weapons to protect the privacy right of celebrities, not neglecting its duty and deprive this right from them. 2.Should a celebrity pay
15、 for his fame by giving up privacy?No. Whatever he got from his career he paid for them through his hardwork and self-decipline. As for the oppositions concern that celebrities may hide dirty little secrets and therefore have bad influence on public, we have already proved that government would supe
16、rvise them with more solid and valid policies and laws, and we believe only the government has such authority to do so.(Summary Model:AHRP)Thoughout this debate, I see mainly two clashes.Clash 1 Does the media coverage of celebrities privacy do such harm that it need to be banned?( YES)Opposition: T
17、hese coverages help to supervise celebrities, teach citizens right from wrong and send positive messages to the public.Us: These coverages harm the celebrities and their families and friends by affecting their normal daily lives, sometimes even arousing personal attacks and insults.(ZGR)These covera
18、ges harm the fans (esp. teenagers who looked up to their models) by misleading them to do the same thing their models did(e.g. drug abuse).These coverages harm the whole society for the media, under its profit-driven nature, may form a competition of disclosing celebrities privacy. Even worse, to at
19、tract more attentain they may try to “create” privacy which is not true, causing greater chaos and disputes.Clash 2 Who should be the supervisor of the celebrities, the media or the government?Opposition: Media GovernmentMedia posesses more facts and can disclose illegal affairs much earlier.Media h
20、elp people to pursue the truth.Improving the functoin of media saves more resources than banning its function.Us: Media GovernmentMedia supervision cant be totally depended on. The advantages of media supervision is based on the premise that it reports the right thing in the right way. However, it i
21、s difficult for media to take an objective view in reporting because media is market-Comment S8: 同上Comment S9: To conclude, we prove the justification of our model, that is, the state has the moral duty to supervise celebrities. We also prove the effectiveness of our model, that is, the state can do
22、 a better job than the media in supervision since very often medias supervision is problematic and violate celebrities privacy right.Comment S10: state，以区分government side / benchComment S11: by saying thatComment S12: ?语言错误Comment S13: because. Debate is a genre between written language and oral lan
23、guage. We can not use very informal words.Comment S14: Why should the state oriented and has to consider the taste of its audience.It is governments duty. Media can supervise, but to the government this is part of its duty that it cant shift to someone else regardless of the expanses. Whats more, on
24、ly government has the stance, the authority and qualification to carry out such powerful supervision to regulate the celbrities.(e.g. anticorruption)It is also the governments duty to ensure the well-being of all citizens by protecting celebrities right and guiding as well as educating normal people
25、 to form the right values(respecting others privacy right, not digging into them).Ending.OWOpposition Whip Speech-This house would ban media coverage of celebrities private life Ladies and gentlemen, as the opposition whip, Id like to begin my summary speech by pointing out todays major clash,firstl
26、y,Human rights and privacy right have been the focusing point throughout this debate, and another clashing point is whether the government should deny the supervision role of the media on celebrities private life.The government side raised the issue of human right that privacy is one of peoples basi
27、c rights, thus it should be protect, and especially so when it comes to celebrities who is more likely and vulnerable to privacy violation, but theres one major flaw here, almost all of the government sides arguments are based on the presumption that celebrities want complete protection of their pri
28、vacy, but that is simply not true, cause everyone knows that at the beginning stage of a celebrities career, all they ever wanted is more media exposure, and more often than not, even after they gained fame, they still would love to deliberately make some fuss about their private life in order to ca
29、tch the publics eyes and attention, if the celebrities themselves do not even want to be protected, who gives the government the right to ignore their personal will and impose its own interpretation on them.And speaking of human rights, the government side only sees one side of the story, which is o
30、nly seeing the problem of media coverage of celebrities privacy from the celebrities point of stand, but just as our leader of opposition has pointed out celebrities are the ones with most social attractions and influence and their behavior and action will definitely play an important role in conduc
31、ting the public, the sad truth is the government completely overlooked the human rights of the public without even sufficiently supporting their one-side story.The other side of the story is the publics right of information as our member of Comment S15: imageComment S16: This paragraph is repeating
32、the idea of the 3rd paragraph. Combine them should be better.Comment S17: ?opposition has pointed out. What celebrities do not want the media to expose are usually bad things theyve done that once exposed would ruin their career and public figure, but without knowing what kind of person they really
33、are, the public see them as role models, they devote time and money to follow they idols, by time, I mean the time they devoted to watch the celebrities on TV and Internet, the time they used to followed them and attend their concerns and also time they spent talking about their idols with friends a
34、nd colleagues, by money, I mean the money they spent on buying albums, books and concert tickets, the public devoted a considerable part of their life to follow their idols, and they deserved to know what kind of person they really are, thats one of their basic human rights, and in half of the cases
35、, the fans that following a certain celebrity are kids whose world view and life perspectives havent been completely developed, and at this certain stage,they need more protection than ever, and their no doubt that both them and their parents have the right to find out or be informed what kind of pe
36、rson their idols really are.The next problem we need to ask ourselves here is that: are the media given permission from the celebrities when they expose their privacy? The government side said no, but we would like to say yes, at least on some level. Again, at the beginning stage at their career, th
37、ey were fully aware the fact that one of the trade-offs of becoming a celebrity is that they would not be able to protect they privacy and they may need to give up part of they right, but they still chose to go down that road and become famous,so there is a big difference here between complete unawa
38、reness and fully awareness of the consequances from the start, its like jumping off from a high platform when you are snowboarding, you know you may hurt yourself if you choose to do it, but you still did it, why? Because you believe that the sense of accomplishment or the compliment you will get or
39、 whatever motivated you to make that jump far exceeds the trade-off that you may get yourself injured, so if you did hurt yourself, theres no one you to be blamed except you yourself.As the matter of whether the government should deny the supervision role of the media on celebrities private life, th
40、ere is no doubt that the status quo works just fine as it is and should be kept the same with governments intervention, the main reason the prime minister gave for this clash point is that some media failed to stay in objectivity and authenticity or even participate in speculation deliberately to fe
41、ed the pulics curiosity of spying celebrities private life, but just because a certain part of a system does not fulfill its properly and legally, we should shut down the entire system? This is as absurd as shuting down the entire government because some officials are corruptive, and whats more, the
42、n the prime minister himself admitted that to some extent the banning may make the supervision more difficult, and even if we implement this banning order, would it really solve the problem, as our bench has help us pictured, the answer is no, it may slow down the spreading of the news about celebri
43、ties privacy, after all, a large amount of us heard about WZs affair through social platforms such as Weibo and Wechat, which are not media channels by definition, so the smarter choice on this matter would be leaving the status quo as it is without going through the changing process and facing uncl
44、ear consequences that we can not anticipate beforehand.Based on the two major clashing point of this debate, there is no doubt that our bench has delivered a better job and more cogent arguments, and that makes us believe that media coverage of celebrities privacy should not be banned, and the status quo should be left as it is.
