Proposition
1.
Definition: only felonies
2.
They committed a crime in the past. They may
3.
Can commit crimes to a bigger scale
4.
Politicians should be role models- they should
have a clean record and show that they are good people
5.
If people have a criminal record, they wouldn’t
even try to go on government jobs. In Korea they will not be chosen. However,
the government officials can.
6.
School (parents) cannot PTA
7.
People (citizens) are not interested to vote b/c
they don’t trust government----by this action, we can upppppppp trust and make
people participate in government more
8.
We can sort our unqualified people—who have
criminal records, who are not role models.
9.
58.3% recidivism rate 2005 Korea
10.
They can’t get along well with others----not
good property for a politician—cannot cooperate
Opposition
1.
They got punishment for their troubles.
2.
They did something wrong and if they learned
about it they have.
3.
The people who are allowed to vote will not choose
them.
4.
No reason for change
5.
Don’t limit ppl’s choice--------people will
choose right people maybe not the people who got record.
6.
There might be people who got arrested for right
causes like protests for minorities’ rights
7.
Rights
Criminals-proposition
Nowadays, especially in Korea,
citizens blame the politicians for how the world doesn’t go the way they ought
to be. They say politicians are all no-good. The people say that we can’t trust
them. One of the biggest reasons why the citizens don’t trust THEIR officials THEY picked is because
politicians are often criminals. Yes, you’ve heard me right. Criminals. As the
whip of the government, I would like to reiterate our stance that we strongly
believe people with criminal backgrounds shouldn’t be allowed to run in
political offices. To support our claim, the 1st speaker explained
that people with criminal records cannot be trusted and the 2nd
speaker proposed of the development of the size of crimes. Also she presented
how people in offices should be role models of others. The other team has
claimed that
However, these reasons are falsely supported and therefore couldn’t
be good enough supports to oppose our case. Before I go into the specific problems
found in the opposition statements, I would like to point out the clashes of
this debate. The points of contentions of this debate were
.
Now I’ll first talk about the fallacies that occurred while they emphasized on .
The opposition has presented several reasons, but they have
been proven false here in the debate. We the proposition however has provided
sufficient reasons that 1st, people with criminals records might be not
trustworthy 2nd the crimes might develop into a greater size and 3rd
politicians should be role model of others. We have defended our arguments with
answering Points of Information correctly. Therefore, we believe that people
with criminal records shouldn’t be allowed to run for offices and that’s why we
believe that we’ve took the debate home. Thank you and I yield my time.
Rebuttals
kMay be change in persona/mind/heart------But there
is a high percentage of repeating crimes. In Korea, it is over 50%. We cannot
say that they have improved.
If they say it’s because of the environment they are in,
we can say then what are people who don’t commit crimes?
kVoters would choose------the
voting rate is low and they don’t vote because they don’t trust the
government----embezzlements happen
kTotal------The morals are
kept the same
kThere might be rightful
crimes ex)protests-Nelson Mandela-----the government can make a law that
protects the people who got arrested and were charged of crimes unfairly.
k23%
ignore----------there is a saying that
reads as better safe than sorry. Yes we can’t ignore that 23%, but there is a
danger from that 77%. We should protect our citizens’ valuable tax moneys from
any chance of embezzlement.
kEveryone makes mistakes—should
forgive---------Felonies—not small crimes like misdemeanors------not a mistake
For
example) Bank robbing, bribery, embezzlement, murder and rape etc. are not mistake + it’s not b/c of
environment or poor etc.
Just
tells us that there is a high chance of problems with their persona/mental
ability
Represent criminals better----there’s a common saying that
states that a frog doesn’t remember the time of tadpole. The politicians who
were criminals wouldn’t look back + they would want to forget their past
Criminals----Opposition
Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson
Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, An Chang-ho, Moon Jae-in. Can you find a relationship
between these people? If you take a glance at it, you can easily find that
these are the people who got arrested for protesting or for other acts to
support the right cause. These people are heroes. Would it be right to forbid
THESE people from leading and representing people they are getting supports
from? I would say no. They should be
allowed to have rights of any other citizen, if not more, which include the
right to run ia political office. I, as the whip of the opposition, strongly
stand against banning people with criminal records to ruorn in public offices.
Before I go into anything else, I would like to point out the clashes of the
debate. The major clashes were
, , and . About these clashes, our first
speaker explained that there is no certain reason for a change. The second
speaker presented the idea that we can’t limit people’s right of choice. Also,
she argued that the people have already got punishment for their wrongful
actions. Against that, the proposition has claimed , , and .
Although it might sound convincing, it is faulty.
The proposition gave few supports that tried to develop their
arguments, and they however were made with numerous fallacies. Therefore I
announce that we’ve won the debate and that people with criminal backgrounds
should be able to run in an election for political offices. Thank you and I
relinquish my time.
Rebuttals
kThey are not
trustworthy------There is no evidence. Also those people might have changed .ex) Kim Woo Soo---was a recidivist stealer,
who went to prison numerous times in his early year but after time, when he was
in a prison he thought about himself and decided to help other people. He
helped parentless kids and donate money for them. He even left the insurance
money when he was killed by a road accident
kOther jobs than political
office are available----why not?---Rights
1st they got punished, 2nd they have right to
sought for every job 3rd voters can choose whether they want a
criminal to represent them fourth they could represent criminals better because
they have experience
kTotal-----They might have
been wrongfully punished for rightful
actions like protests
kcriminals get discriminated and don’t get along well with
other people----we should help them so provide them with same rights
kForeign countries wouldn’t
trust Korea----Their government also has people who were criminals
kVoters will choose
No comments:
Post a Comment