What email address or phone number would you like to use to sign in to Docs.com?
If you already have an account that you use with Office or other Microsoft services, enter it here.
Or sign in with:
Signing in allows you to download and like content, and it provides the authors analytical data about your interactions with their content.
Embed code for: 2AR_for_extra_in_kansai
Select a size
Kansai Extra 2016/1/9 R1 2AR speech
“Last” Rebuttal Road Map: CP → Negative OBS(with DA) → Advantage(with OBS)
Remember this CP doesn’t function as single voter because without DA, no meaning to wait until 2033 and only inferiority remains. Actually they proved until 2033, but after that, no prospect was given. In addition, this CP is too fragile to cover today’s aging problem.
Extend elderly people argument in c). Already we reached limitation.
Extend technology argument. How robot can care people? How can they make crops? We have seen remarkable advancement of technology until now. But still we are in trouble with respect to labor force by aging problem. Then how can they prove reliable prospect? No answer was given. How many years do we wait? It’s non-sense.
Extend women argument, we can conclude the main reason was gender-equity because we analyzed and proved sensitively with evidence while negative showed data without any relevancy nor logic and was not authorized. Based on this assumption, using women is inferior because 1st bearing child and career is competitive for them. It’s impossible to take both. 2ndly more importantly, especially in Japan where gender role attitude remains, under the situation of lack of labor force, Japanese men have to work hard and have no time to care women or child. This situation just enhance gender-“inequity” and low birthrate. So affirmative plan must be superior, (even considering high fertility rate of immigrant).
So in sum, CP is insufficient to cover our problem so that backbone of the negative is only DA. Go to negative observation. (1’ 40”)
(Negative observation flow)
Here, you need to recognize the consensus of this debate, meaning aging problem impact is already regarded as significant by both sides, which is definitely sure to threaten the national structure.
Now we have to sensitively debate the approach for it whether immigration policy with the viewpoint of globalization is better or domestic policy with national security is better.
I will begin from whether today’s risk of terror is really considerable or not.
I have 3 response.
Their all assumption of terror comes from empirical data. H/E no clear applicability was given. There is religion in foreign country. But there is not in Japan. So this argument doesn’t apply to Japan.
(On this point, they said foreigners may lead to conflict AP. But remember foreigner’s aim is not bringing conflict but just earning money. They can easily estimate bringing conflict lead to being fired. If we have to care this negligible risk, it’s same as current visitor coming to Japan for sightseeing. They have possibility to be terrorist. It’s not unique.)
My 2nd refutation is no unique indicating lots of foreigners are already there (as mentioned above). They responded number is different or so. Okay, I consider this point.
That means even SQ although there are tons of foreign people in Kyoto, Osaka or Tokyo? I’m not sure, but massive foreign people in Japan (and city is crowed), terror never occur.
Then how many people is necessary to trigger terror? And when we have to care it though Olympics will be hold soon? No criterion was given. This is the failure of negative.
This risk is too negligible to evaluate.
So last argument is extension of P-S enhancing checking system will be sufficiently work.
(Advantage flow with OBS)
In sum, their stance is like this.
Though we have social security, we should stop acceptance of immigrant.
Though we cannot eat rice, we should stop acceptance of immigrant.
Thought we have to care by myself without care worker or nurse,
we should stop acceptance of immigrant.
It’s not the policy making. Okay we always follow terrorist since we fear terrorism!!
No. That’s wrong.
Here my question is “Is doing nothing really the approach for terrorism”? Since we fear terror and follow them, they feel it interesting and repeat it like our TA. We are not the puppet. Precisely because we fear terror, we should not give in to terrorism. This is why Team Abe didn’t follow last year.
Rather their stance will be trigger of terror.
Negative stance just regard innocent people as malicious.
These kinds of actions discriminate the immigrant and make them real terrorist like their negative observation evidence. It’s too intolerant.
Where we have to go should be more corporative society. Cooperating with other country while adjusting the anti-discrimination act must be appropriate way for the national security and for the aging problem.
Now in the society moving on globalization, we have lots of cultures or viewpoints.
Sure it might be difficult to mix.
But since now where we are interacting each other, we have brilliant path to go.
“It’s too late after terrorism occur?” We already suffered labor shortage and it’s enhancing even now. Recognizing the fact we face to, vote for affirmative. (5’00”…)
2AR for Extra in Kansai Affirmative K.Sumita@OPU
2roved sensitively with evidence while negative showed data without any relevancy nor logic and was not authorized. Based on this assumption, using women is inferior because 1st bearing child and career is competitive for them. It’s impossible to take both. 2ndly more importantly, especially in Japan where gender role attitude remains, under the situation of lack of labor force, Japanese men have to work hard and have no time to care women or child. This situation just enhance gender-“inequity” and low birthrate. So affirmative plan must be superior, (even considering high fertility rate of immigrant).
Rather their stance will be tr