일정

내일 부터 민사 영어토론대회에 참여합니다. 본선을 나갔으면 좋겠네요.

민사고 영어 토론대회

2차의 벽을 뚫고 3차까지 나가게 되었습니다. 7월 25일 부터 27일 까지네요. Finals 까지 가면 좋긴 하겠습니다.

오늘 민사 영토 2차를 갖다 왔습니다.

민사고 교정도 둘러보고 선배들도 봤는 데 너무 좋더라고요.

교내 토론대회--인터넷 실명제

토론 대회 대본과 논제입니다. 원래 논설문 형식이 있었는 데 주요 주장을 대본에 넣었습니다.

논거: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bxk7emthjrKTSmFrTWt4N2VYU00/edit?usp=sharing

대본:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ftf5ewlhhXLrB9mIcSEJxANknjaKvV2d8JyxtY2prPM/edit?usp=sharing

Free college

University Proposition

College tuitions block some people from getting the education they need and want. University tuition is expensive. In some case of some prestigious college, the price reaches $60,000 only for the classes. Even for the public colleges, especially for international students, the price of education still lies high. So ladies and gentlemen and Mr. Speaker, we, the proposition strongly believes that university education should be free. To support our stance, we gave several reasons. First, we gave the number, the price of college tuition. The numbers about $10,000, which is quite high. Then we explained how the society, the nation can benefit from it. Our third reason concerns with the fair opportunity. If college education is free, students will not be limited to their choice because of their financial ability. OK. Now there were some major clashes here in the debate, first being the economics of this action and the second being the effectiveness of university education in creating opportunities and improving nations. For the first clash, we once again want to highlight the weight of the tuition. Students have large-sized tuition loans on their shoulders. They have to repay the debt for over many years. In the US, the students have total of one trillion in education debt. If something happens to them in their career, their credit rating and everything else will fall to the ground. They have to stay in job, maybe in one's they maybe not want for their profession for at least 10 years to repay their debt. The one's with scholarships, the opposition might mention, are the minority. The predicament that students face is serious. However, the proposition claims that the government will not have enough budgets for the program. But if the administrative cut expenditures for unsuccessful plans, I believe the government will be able to manage. Also, it's a fact that 60% of all students are already getting financial aid and people are only paying 1/2 of all tuition meaning that the government may be able to manage to pay for full tuition. The opposition might object that the people who don't need the benefits wouldn't pay the taxes for free higher education. But I would like to compare it with Obamacare, which is passed just a few days ago. Rich people fought against Obamacare but it was passes anyway. It goes with this Act. Free college education should be a social welfare, which should be paid by everyone. (Incase of EU, the problems comes from excessive social security. )(And for those of whom who feel that free higher education is excess, we can create laws that forces people to work for at least 4 years mandatora0lly to make use of their education.) The second clashes, which I mentioned as effectiveness of college education. The opposition explained that there is no increase in the number of university graduates and it wouldn't help to give everyone an opportunity for higher education. But we would like to comment that at least there would be no one who would be no one who would refuse college because of its tuition. This means everyone gets a chance to try out for college. The students wouldn't be limited to the choices either. The opposition then falsely claimed that the quality of education will drop. There is no evidence of that. For example, it true that Ivy colleges with high tuitions are the worlds best but public schools with lower tuitions like UCLA and UC Berkley also have high quality. Also, there are some private colleges where without scholarships don't have a good education system. This tells me that there is no real correlation between tuition and quality would also drop. About their final proposement, that since the availability of university education increases, the competition will also increase. We, the proposition believe it is a good thing and they might say many are jobless because of great competition but about 90% got jobs within 6 months. Young, smart people will have a better chance and because it is more competitive, the companies will have better assets on their sides. This will develop countries strength. We gave strong reasons for this clash, too. We explained society with many educated people would be more productive. For example, Sweden has the best students and is one of the countries with high GDP per capita. (The opposition also mentioned that free higher education will lower the motivation but the proposition has no evidence of it.) In conclusion, we, the proposition gave proper reasons for all of the two clashes to support the motion, providing free college education and that we have won the debate.

CCTV threatens our freedom

Proposition

CCTV is always watching you. In the city of London, there are more than a million of those closed circuit cameras. They are invading our privacy, our freedom. So we, the proposition, believe that CCTV is a great threat to our freedom. First, I would like to summarize what our members have mentioned. We are greatly worried that CCTV can lead to misuse of information and can invade our privacy. Also, we proved that CCTV is not effective. Here in the debate, there were two major clashes. The first one is the importance of privacy. We believe privacy should be valued more. As we have said before, our identity is a thing that makes us. Without it, we lose what our selves are. The opposition rebut that the greater good, safety, for everyone is more important but here's the thing.... A group is made of individuals. Invading one's privacy is not just invading one person's. It's invading everyone's. Especially in public places this might happen so often and it will make us bare out with other people. Invasion of privacy is also dangerous because it is information that we don’t want others to know. With our personal information, the criminals can checkout money out of bank and sign-up for some ridiculous sites that we don’t want. I bet nobody wants his or her money stolen right? CCTVs can get us pressing password on our phone and use them for awful causes. This leads into our second argument, the misuse of information. The opposition can say that misuse of information is just a case of unique event. However, we would like to suggest how humans’ ambitions reach high. If they want to commit something, they have will power to do so. So we, the proposition believe that these possible criminals may be on the seats of security personals and may be watching you. Add to that, I want you, ladies and gentlemen to be aware that the greater the number of CCTVs are, you can say that the government don't trust you and this matters because this means there is no trust between people. This is very important. Now here’s another topic that we argued about, effectiveness. The opposition just said that the CCTVs can provide safety and can prevent some crimes. However, we have the statistic that explains that CCTV is not effective. According to the Telagraph, in London only one crime is solved by 1000 camera. The article claims that CCTV doesn't really help solve many crimes. It also explains CCTVs are not cost effective. Every case cost about 20,000 Euros, which may be over the price of the sole case. Now this is the second clash----CCTVs are not effective. In addition to its ineffectiveness in catching and solving crimes, CCTVs can only watch certain areas, and therefore can create balloon effects. The government can install cameras in one place but they wouldn't be able to place on in another. This means that if crimes occur less in certain areas, the same amount will increase in the other. Also, it can't prevent many crimes. CCTVs are waste of money and it goes against our freedom to use money, which we pay for taxes. In conclusion, we, the proposition believes that CCTV is a threat to our freedom and we have won the debate.

should all freshmen live in campus sites?

Draft

1.    INTRO

A.    Hook: Do you ever dream of attending college and enjoy what people say a ‘’campus life”?

B.    Motion(meaning):campus housing better fits the purpose of university education, to teach people academics but also social skills

                                                                              i.         Academics important b/c many people attend university because they want academic learning

                                                                            ii.         Social skills---students one day have to graduate and to survive as a salary men or to get a job with some kind of human interaction, they need these skills.

C.    Definition: When we say university campus housing- living campus grounds and by freshmen- 1^st year of college

2.    OUTLINE

A.    Join a new community

B.    Academics

C.    Economics

3.    ARGUMENTS

A.    Be in a new community

                        i.         Premise: You will be accepted to a new community

                       ii.         Hypothesis: If students live in university campus housing, they will meet new people and will join university community

                      iii.         Reasoning: Join university community-meet new people- meet someone who might help you later in life-graduate-get a job- meet that person- get help

1.     Example—mark zukerberg---live in dorm and communicated with other roommates and got idea of facebook—Meet many people with many ideas

2.     Can have fun

3.     Make new friends

A.    Make important relations

                                                   i.         Maybe helpful for “adult life”

B.    Social skills

                                                   i.         How to live as an adult and know others’ feelings

                                                  ii.         By social skills, we mean understanding others emotions

B.    Can focus more on studying

                        i.         Premise: University has educational support for students

                       ii.         Hypothesis: If students live in university-provided dorms, they will be able to have more time to get educational support that the university provides

                      iii.         Reasoning: Live in dorms-closer to supports dept or tutoring dept/ have more time to access them-get that help-learn better-this is achieving the ultimate goal of university, to educate people-students can study in better environment- can focus more on studying-(get better grades, better job)

4.    CONCLUSION

A.    Summary

                        i.         How college life w/ dorms can be better in future life in terms of relationships

                       ii.         How dorms can help students focus better

B.    Motion/position

                        i.         Therefore we believe all freshmen should live in university housing and so that the motion stands.

Allow people with criminal background in public offices

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 1^st speaker explained that people with criminal records cannot be trusted and the 2^nd 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 2^nd the crimes might develop into a greater size and 3^rd 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  1^st they got punished, 2^nd they have right to sought for every job 3^rd 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

Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear-proposition

Over 60% of Koreans agree that South Korea should own a nuclear weapon. We fear that we couldn’t have a chance to defend against North Korea. As the whip of the government, I would like to emphasize our stance again, that South Korea should develop nuclear weapons. Let me quickly summarize our points to support our case. Our 1^st speaker subjected that Korea could have a rise in its standings and can develop peace in the Korean peninsula leading to less war threats or even preventing any future wars. Then the 2^nd speaker presented that we can gain a lot of technology which includes nuclear protection gears and technology to reuse nuclear waste and that we have every resource needed to develop a nuclear weapon. Before I point out fallacies found in the opposition’s arguments, I would like to list the points of contentions in this debate. They were                        ,                 , and                  . In opposition’s speeches, they believed ___________ on __________ clash. However, _______________ is ___________________

Overall, they have provided us with arguments about ______________ _______________ and ___________ and we have proven that they are not properly supported. Nuclear weaponry can improve our status in the world and may lead to advanced technologies. Since they have many advantages, we the government firmly believe that nuclear weapons for Korea will bring Korea positive outcomes. Thank you.

Rebuttals

Total-----Our safety is our priority, not relations

The neighboring countries wouldn’t like it----- but by then we would be out of hands and would be powerful enough. Plus we could develop it in secret like Israel.

Dangerous-----we can develop technologies that we could safely store and research about the weapon

Dangerous------ As it might look dangerous, it is safer then fission reactor, the generator matter of fact. This weapon can maybe pollute a city but the reactor can contaminate a nation. For example, there were people living in Hiroshima after the bomb dropped but there are no people (not really) living near the accident of the fission reactor of Fukushima. Same goes for Chernobyl------over 40yrs of emptiness.

Nuclear weapons are dangerous-----Then why do we use nuclear power plant?

By developing nuclear weapons we can create a better protection for nuclear activity.

US will be upset and may start a war against us-----US wouldn’t come in-Iraq-went in, no weapons of mass destruction-----they wouldn’t want to commit same mistake as b4 losing a lllllloootttt of money

North Korea wouldn’t like it. -----We could continue peace---we can’t start a war and they wouldn’t threaten us.

Non-proliferation treaty, problems with US-------Agreement for cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the United States of America concerning the Civil Use of Atomic Energy ends at June 16^th, 2015 when it is 41yrs since June 16^th , 1974 when the agreement was signed.

Nuclear----opposition

Dark sky has befallen to the skies of Hiroshima. A mushroom cloud appears out of nowhere and soon I fell into my doom. Imagine if this is happening everywhere around you. How horrible will it be? Nuclear bombs do great harm from environmental damage to fatalities of thousands. If South Korea develops a nuclear bomb, and as they will say just as a defense mechanism or for not detonating, there might as well be a possibility of firing it against another country, or especially for targeting North Korea. So here I would like to point out again that we, the opposition strongly believes that South Korea should not develop any kind of nuclear weaponry.  Our 1^st speaker has presented the importance of trade in the Korean economy and our lack of resources to make a weapon of such. The 2^nd speaker then provided the idea about easy access that terrorist will get for nuclear arsenals and the idea of numerous dangers of a weapon. Now that I have shortly explained our arguments, I will point out mistakes made during the propositions arguments. The proposition expressed that South Korea should own a nuclear weapon because of ________,__________,________. However these arguments include several fallacies. About the first clash that we discussed, about______, they have mentioned

Though the government gave numerous reasons to support their claim about South Korea owning a nuclear weapon, we found that the arguments were not supported with sufficient reasons. Nuclear weapons have great danger and are non-humanitarian. Therefore we pronounce that allowing South Korea with a nuclear weapon is not a positive choice. Thank You.

Rebuttals

The non-proliferation treaty- the owning members of nuclear weapons should try to eliminate the weapon and the other countries that are joined in the act should not build any kind of nuclear weapon which includes missiles.

It can actually be used in war-------severe impact in both the other country’s ground and people.---killing the other country’s people (especially civilians) are also a murder. This is non-humanitarian act and does not abide to our ethics.

It might be attacked during war------radiation might leak and contaminate South Korea

Because our country will get hold of a greater power and influence, the other nations which includes the US, China and Japan might be threatened by our existence. This might lead into negative influence in our exports etc. In Korea trade is essential in the economy----lose trust---bad image of S.Korea lose exports 70% depends on Korea

Why do we have too?----- 1. we got a strong military. 8^th in ranking. 2. Also there are countries like Germany or Luxemburg that does not have a nuclear weapon though is a considered as developed nation. They might have it under NATO but they do not own it. 3. And is wasting money ----low percentage of war chance.

Nuclear weapons need to be tested before used or equipped. We need to test it but if we do it in our grounds, our soil will get polluted. Also, it is just not safe. Add to it, it might negatively affect our relations with US.

                When US leaves N. Korea will have a better chance of attacking us. 2. Ad to it N. Korea might just be angry with nukes. They are already upset with joint military practices.

Exports are very important to us 70% of economy depends on exports

US cannot go in----yes they can. If they have actual evidence.

Economy or economic power does not necessarily relate with influence that is earned from nuclear weapons. They cannot ignore you but see our consumers from other country is usually US,

China----they have nuclear weapons. They will not be really influenced by our status earned from Nuke. They might actually put on a embargo to limit our economy and protect their own country.

Can achieve a greater world power-------However, being a world power also involves trust between nations. If we go against the non-proliferation treaty, we will lose the trust. Also, without trust, we will lose exports and we cannot have an economic growth in near decades. Economic factor is another major factor that influences the nation’s position. 

We might have other chances to gain our trust back-----------If we think of Made in China, we get a negative image. The image of a nation works the same way. They can’t be undone.

relpy format

Hello, ladies and gentlemen and honorable judges. It was a wonderful debate today. In today’s debate, we discussed about whether or not we should                                                                      . It was a heated debate and since we’ve supported our reasons well, we believe that we, the _____________(ourt) has won the debate. The points of contentions of this debate were          ,            ,and           . For each of these points we gave proper reasons. For the first clash,          , we claimed                 . We have supported our reasoning with an example about                                   . Then I explained about                              , which gave details to hold our stance in a clash about                     . Our second speaker spoke about              (clsh), and gave detailed reasons such as                                 to develop                              (argt). She also emphasized on                               (argt). Our examples were valid to the point and were concise. The _____________(otht)’s points however were proven faulty and invalid previously by our whip. Also we responded to several point of information well. For example, about the question the _________(otht) has made in our ____________(spkr) speech, about                                    , we’ve answer to it by                            . Our team has successfully supported our stance “____________________________________________________” with ___(#) reasons, first being                               , secondly                               , also                           and finally                              . Therefore we believe we have taken the debate home.

Marijuana

Marijuana

PROPOSITION

Our: After 74yrs of mar prohibition failure----22mil arrested 850thou this year 90% only procession  less harmful than tobacco---highly addictive too away many stuff like student loans

Our: Alcohol prohibition not work, same for marijuana

Their: We prohibited many drugs such as cocaine and marijuana-----Reduced drug rate

Our:  Reduced drug crime rate=false b/c  it is from survey in gov. asking children and going home to home. We should look at arrest, and ppl in jail ,gov expense,  amount of mar intercepted, mari  grown inside us.  Gone up actually. The survey only measures willingness to acknow. The use of mari so fake.

Penn: gateway drug easy for minors to get

Our:  caffeine(coffee), toba, alch, mari 1^st illegal x 1^st drug survey: more child. Acess to untaxed mar. than alch.

SC: many working ppl into criminals arrested for smoking mar.

Their:  if want decrease in mari.  Cannot legalize x right to say costs are for nothing

Fl: talk ab/ econ. Tobacco usage down b/c legal. If same for mari, same with tobacco.

Their,: alchol not down after legal. So same for mari. Not down…   Econ about tax reven for mari, x be a motivating factor for legal mari (products like this) and for cali, local gov. can tax. And nobody will sign it b/c illegal in fed level

Our: calif- 25 community happy to sign taxes,  in bean counter in gov. happy to take receipt.  col, new mexico, dc, rhode island,  Maine already signed off  (attorneys) on med. Mar.

Their,: medical- admin don’t care. But we’re talking about recreational usage. Processing and growing mar.----crime under fed. Law   prez. Obama 2010 says no legal mar. except med.

Taxes: putting jail worse than smoking. We’re better off w/o mar. last year (2009) 1.5 mil. More smokers

Speaker: Are those 1.5 mil ppl change behavior or in those areas?

Their: stat form nat survey: 1----private, 2---- gov. run   doing these stats for 3 dec. 30yrs.  Look at emergency call, treatment sta, driving under influ stat, productive in workplace sta. all these influ by  mari.

Cali: prop 19, yes on though x like regul. Fact that fed jud- 5 terri like amer Samoa cannabis rebuld neurons

Speaker: Regul  in fed zone?

Terri- dea in many terri work with law enforcement.

Speaker:Legal of prop 19, bur also in econ. Report form Jeffery  mayor –cato expert on budgetary implications on prohibition of illicit drugs,  Legalizing all drugs----$41.3 billion a year on saving on gov. law enforce $46.7 bill in tax reven.

Their:amount of tax reven 10-15 billion  & police x wasting time  80-100thou ppl incarcerated(jailed)  in us for mari only related defenses and cultivation on trafficking. It’s this crushing times that changed legi’s view poin. That’s why obama’s doing sth else . there’s a  terrific amount of reven. If not in depression, debate not this fast.

Their: when alch. Prohibition died, did law enforcement go out of business, fbi nothing to do? No criminals worked in other kinds of crimes. Ex) organ. Crimes continued. Responsibility on other drugs like cocaine and other drugs. But definitely not those huge savings.  Same for tax reven side.

Washington:  (dea is awful. )2 kinds of smuggler thosepay deal off,  those go around them .(border) How much $ in mafica from drug? No cannot compete w/government. I can do anything with my body. The drugs are illegal b/c goven.  can control us and enslave us.

Their: DEA agents do great work. Some ppl say bribing dea- mexico some problems but they are addressed aggressively. 1 thing great ab/ amer---integrity. In crim justice sys.  Makes point about liber viewpoint. Can goven control our actions. That’s a personal choice. We are required to warn and edu ppl about dangers, regulate in public places and we have to balance between good of others vs one, and some drug does great harm to others, it’s appropriate for goven.  to have control over those actions.

Texas: ( Dea doing great job, american)  I live the border there’s a war we seem to lose. I can tell you there’s a drug dealer, there’s this house, that’s not a drug dealer. I can tell you this b/c they come from mexico with nothing and after a year and they’re really wealthy.can spot them.  I can tell you who is legal, who is illegal, selling pots , Overwhelming  evidence, cannot take them down just like that. Many relatives in law enforcement but they’re like unbeatable. I believe when we come to war that we are to lose, we have to find a way to make it a draw.

Our:just as talker said these are  ills of prohibition: it destabilizes borders, police and political corruption on both sides- how else can it come through?  Corona beer- from Mexico and we can buy it, if its legal and taxed it’s not problem.

Tenessee: marijuana should be treated as cash crop like corn and tobacco. That way  govn. can control and ppl can get what they want, than there will be no problem.

Their: totally different direction ex) calif. Prop 19 is going against what prez obama called mexico for---reduce the flow of mari. In taxing and regulating 1 question: you want another illegal drug turning from illegal to regulated. By this, consumption will increase and do the parents of our nation want this to happen. Ex) in alaska 70s—legalized mari, consumption went up and problems appeared---ppl voted against it. Look at history and the problems.

Person from tweeter: How would can legal mari affect dea? Budget?

Their: in control of controlled substance---really x change the mission, hands full of others  and diversion of med. Drugs  Maybe mari.  If you regul. Mari----still in black market.

Penn: problem with criminalization with mari. Small amount of mari. Where do they get? Ppl doing enterprise

Our: Indeed that’s prohibition 1/3 population in the us. 120mil  Ppl living in 14 states with legal mari, 65%to decriminalize mari. Better to pay fine than get arrested for mari. But never address wholesale retail concerns.

Speaker :  amsterdam= weeding out cannabis cafés

Their: 1^st person experience: It’s not just cannabis, also other drug.  People there offered drugs. Now they see dangers of drug and overabundance of cannabis shops.

Massachusetts: It’s only a plan. Nothing after $100, nothing more. If you don’t pay, you just don’t pay it. Other point: What DEA guy was saying was fear based. And plan should also have some fear for it or it is just a plan and it wouldn’t work.

Their: If you decriminalize it, you just pay the fine you’re done with it so more usage of marijuana. Fear(law based consequences with bad for your  health)  is only thing that discourages people to not try them.

cellphones in school

Opposition

Hello, ladies and gentlemen and Mr. Speaker. I am the leader of opposition and we, the opposition is strongly against allowing students to use cell phones in school. Before I go into our teams arguments and rebuttals, we found some faults in the definition that the government provided. If students gain access to mobile phones, they will not use their phones just for educational purposes. They will definitely use phones for services such as Facebook and Kakao Talk games. So we believe that the motion should be interpreted as allowing students to have access to all cell phone functions including SNS, games and calculator during school hours. First let me rebut the points that the prime minister mentioned. The prime minister answered to our POI about the possibility of limited regulation possible after allowing phones by installing blocking programs. However, the government should be aware that since those phones are not school property, they have no right to so such a thing. Also, students can delete the software installed leading to no positive outcome from this. Now I’ll present our points. I, the prime minister will present how bullying can become a bigger problem with cell phones in school. Also, I will explain how this action can lower focus of the students. Finally, I will present the alternative to allowing cell phones in school. And now I’ll go into my points. Nowadays, bullying often happens in cyberspace. With the smart phones, students can easily access internet and continue bullying a person in school. When phone wasn’t around, the person who is getting picked on just didn’t have to meet the bully but now, they couldn’t because the bully can follow you everywhere with internet access. Also, another problem related to bullying can be made from allowing mobile phones. If a student doesn’t have a phone, or has a low quality phone, they can be bullied just because of that. Some people who are not able to afford nice phones can get pushed around and this is against what education should be; to be fair for everyone. Bullying is not the only problem. Students will lose focus with their phones around. Let me present an example. When a student has a phone near them, there is no exception that the person will touch it and use it. This goes same for the class environment. Students cannot ignore the eagerness to use their phones in class and this would definitely lower the concentration. If the concentration lower, it is definite that the grades will fall. Are allowing phones still a good thing? Is it? I can provide a better alternative. Schools can lend tablet PCs to students. Students will have access to school wifi and the wifi will be blocked for any social networking or gaming sites. This idea is now impossible. Some school in my country is doing this program and is having success. I believe allowing phones have far too many cons than its positive aspects and that is why I strongly believe that granting the use of phone in school is a bad idea.

Internet censorship

 Proposition

Why internet censorship should be allowed

1)      Protect children and women from sexually explicit contents.

a.       Pornography is illegal and without the internet censorship, there will be a lot more of these explicit videos.

2)      We should block access to North Korean site so that they wouldn’t lure South Koreans to do jobs for them

a.       If nationals of S. Korea see this information continually, they might get accustomed to that system and they might try to follow that system though it’s against the basis of our government and they know the communist regime has filed. (This could be worse for children and adolescents.- future of our nation)

b.      False statement of facts

3)      We should block access to high security information like for the military in the public

a.       If secretive information goes out, countries like nk can use it to attack military center places.

4)      School computers- block youtube, mail, game sites so that students cannot use computer other ways

a.       Help block sites that might distract students from attractive contents to focus on studying.

Article

What is Not Protected by the First Amendment

Are any forms of expression not protected by the First Amendment? The Supreme Court has established several limited exceptions to the First Amendment's protection:

FIGHTING WORDS: In the 1942 case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court held that so-called "fighting words...which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are not protected under the First Amendment and can be punished. The Court based its decision on the concept that such utterances are of "slight social value as a step to truth."

LIBEL: In the 1964 case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court held, in a ground breaking decision, that defamatory falsehoods published about public officials are not protected by the First Amendment and can be punished if the offended official can prove that his/her accuser published the falsehoods with "actual malice" -- that is, with "knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." While the Court's decision addressed a particular type of common law libel, other kinds of "libelous statements "are also punishable.

COMMERCIAL SPEECH: In the 1976 case of Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, the Supreme Court struck down a state ban on prescription drug advertising on First Amendment grounds. However, commercial speech -- which includes advertising, financial and credit reports, and the like -- still has far less First Amendment protection than other speech. Generally, it can be banned if it is, on the whole, misleading or takes undue advantage of its audience.

OBSCENITY: "Obscene" material has historically been excluded from First Amendment protection which has led to the official banning of such classics as James Joyce's Ulysses and D.H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover, as well as the criminal prosecution of countless publishers, book distributors, storekeepers, film distributors and artists.[7]