10b2 121074 Younggeun Yoo
Motion: THBT dating should be banned in coed boarding schools
Role as a Deputy Prime Minister
As a deputy prime minister of today’s debate, I first provided the roadmap of my speech. Then, I started the actual speech by refuting opposition’s three arguments that have been provided by the leader of opposition. Leader of opposition provided three arguments by herself. The first argument was that students have the right to pursue happiness, as guaranteed in constitutional law, and dating obviously gives students a happiness.
However, I refuted to this argument by questioning if the happiness gained by dating in school is a true happiness. Dating that could result in dropping grades and harsh time management in school cannot guarantee true happiness in most cases in a long term. The opposition’s second argument was that dating could help students learn different perspectives and the method of getting along well with others. I admitted the fact that learning social skills is very important. Nevertheless, I pointed out the fact that social skills can be gained by playing sports or participating in extracurricular activities, and therefore, there is no reason to go on dating that has great danger if an objective is to learn social skills. Opposition’s last argument was that banning dating in coed boarding school is inefficient. Since students frequently contact with each other, it is very ambiguous to differentiate the line between ‘friend’ and ‘lover’. However, I, as a deputy prime minister, emphasized the fact that the definition of dating has clearly been stated by prime minister’s speech, as ‘male and female students having a physical contact with each other.’ To clarify whether or not two people are having physical contact is straightforward. If the opposition side had a problem with the definition presented by prime minister, the leader of opposition should have pointed that out.
After then, I moved on to clarifying the government’s first argument. However, the leader of opposition did not provide rebuttal for the government’s first argument, so I finished clarifying by pointing the fact out.
Then, I presented the government’s second argument, which was about ‘the true goal of school’. I argued that the main objective of school is studying, mainly academic ones, as provided by the definition. Since teens are mentally unstable, they have higher potential to be distracted in their academic life when they go out dating. Meanwhile, dating does not give much teaching to the students. Maybe some social interacting skills, but as I mentioned earlier in the speech, such things can be gained through other activities. I also emphasized the point that the government side is not arguing that dating itself is bad, but just saying that dating ‘in school’ that is done ‘by teens’ have much more drawbacks than its benefits.
Role as a Reply Speaker
As a reply speaker, I threw three questions to the debate. ‘Why should dating be allowed, especially in school?’, ‘What is the true responsibility and role of schools?’, and ‘What is the true cause of inappropriate actions done?’ Before actually talking about the questions, I first pointed out that there was some ambiguity in the debate, since the opposition side did not follow the definition presented by the government side without actually raising challenge.
The first question I suggested was ‘Why should dating be allowed especially in school?’ I reminded the fact that it is very easy for the relationship between male and female students to go beyond the appropriate level once dating is allowed in school. Opposition stated the fact that students have a right to pursue happiness and dating in coed boarding school can guarantee the happiness. However, I reminded the fact that deputy prime minister, which is me, have mentioned that there are many other activities you can do other than dating to get such effects, and the whip speaker, Jaeho, mentioned the fact that dating does a great harm to surrounding students as well by distracting an atmosphere.
The second question I raised was ‘What is the true responsibility and role of schools?’ I reminded that prime minister, Sua, mentioned that schools, especially coed boarding schools, are responsible for the actions students take. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with school placing a ban on dating which is expected to have great negative consequences. It is true that the goal of school is not restricted to academic ones but also the others like social skills, as opposition mentioned, but again, school can teach students such skills not through dating but other activities. The part of individual relationship that dating provides cannot be replaced by others, but there is no reason to allow students to have that kind of relationship, while they can do such things when they grow up and become mature enough.
The last question I threw was ‘What is the true cause of inappropriate actions of teens?’ The opposition claimed that such status quo has been derived from the atmosphere of the society that is so open to obscene stuff. However, although the true cause of such dramatic status quo is not known for sure, it is certain that ‘allowing’ dating in school would increase the potential inappropriate behavior. Therefore, dating should not be banned and some educations that teaches appropriate actions should be done. To their argument, which said that ‘education can be provided’, I reminded the fact that in order for such claim to stand, there must be a premise. Students should pay attention to the education. Nevertheless, almost no one pays attention when such educations are done. Even in KMLA, almost everyone sleeps.
As a conclusion, I claimed that the fundamental question of the debate was ‘who is the side that advocates the behavior, that is done in right time at right place?’ I restated that the evidences mentioned previously clearly states government side as a winner.
Some of the links that could support my opinion.