"Political Prisoners" In Russia: Is Pardoning Them a Political Stunt?

QUESTION (from idebate.org, Alex Helling):

Russia is considering pardons and amnesties for many of the high profile cases that have brought criticism from the west such as Pussy Riot and Khodorkovsky. After a very successful year on the global stage where Putin has succeeded in facing down the United States on Syria and the win Ukraine over to his side in competition with the European Union Vladimir Putin is showing a conciliatory side – or possibly is being magnanimous in victory.

There have been several high profile cases where the Russian state has jailed people when that westerners have often considered to be unfair; Khordorkovsky is often considered to have been imprisoned due to his wealth and beginning to looking like a viable opposition leader – the west has never really bought the idea that he was somehow more corrupt than other oligarchs. More recently Pussy Riot highlighted the issue of freedom of speech in Russia. And only this year Greenpeace activists attempting to highlight oil drilling in the arctic were detained after an assault by the Russian military.

 Now there is to be an amnesty as a part of the celebrations for the 20^th anniversary of the adoption of the Russian constitution. The amnesty will pardon non-violent first time offenders which will apply both to the Greenpeace activists who clearly have no criminal record in Russia as they are from outside the country as well as the members of Pussy Riot who are still in jail as a result of their stunt in Moscow’s cathedral of Christ the Savior with a song calling for Putin’s removal from power. Putin points out that the amnesty was not specifically aimed at either of these two cause celebres.

Putin wrote:

"It is neither linked to Greenpeace, nor this group [Pussy Riot]. I was not sorry that they ended up behind bars. I was sorry that they were engaged in such disgraceful behavior, which in my view was degrading to the dignity of women. They went beyond all boundaries "

The BBC says it covers “at least 20,000 prisoners, including minors, invalids, veterans, pregnant women, and mothers.” However Russia’s Human Rights Council estimates that the amnesty will free less than 1500 prisoners out of a prison population of 700,000 making it rather fortuitous that it covers many of the best known cases outside the country.

If Pussy riot and the Greenpeace activists being freed is merely coincidence then one pardon does appear to be intentional. Khodorkovsky’s current jail term is not his first so he is not eligible for this amnesty yet Putin has announced in his annual news conference that he will be pardoned. The reasoning is Khodorkovsky

Putin wrote:

"has already spent more than 10 years in prison, this is a serious punishment. He is citing humanitarian circumstances, his mother is ill, and I think this is grounds for making a decision, and a decree about his pardon will be signed in the nearest future."

yet Khodorkovsky’s legal team know of no request for clemency leading to the supposition that Putin may simply have decided that now is a good time.

Many will consider that the imprisonment of all of these groups was political, and therefore their being freed must also be political. It is notable that the winter Olympics in Sochi are just around the corner; taking place in February of next year. Already leaders of major countries are declaring that they will not attend such as Francois Hollande of France and German President Joachim Gauk saying they would boycott the games  while US president Obama has been a bit more ambiguous about his motivations simply saying that there scheduling difficulties meaning he cannot attend. Putin might therefore be calculating that by showing a willingness to free those who are considered to be the opposition he might pre-empt a more general boycott.

Debatabase debate ‘This House believes the imprisoned members of pussy riot should be considered political prisoners’ http://freespeechdebate.idebate.org/debatabase/debates/freespeechdebate/house-believes-imprisoned-members-pussy-riot-should-be-considered-polit

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/12/18/us-russia-greenpeace-amnesty-idUKBRE9BH0FO20131218

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25433426

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/khodorkovsky-to-be-pardoned-putin-says/491892.html#ixzz2nwPiA0sk

ANSWER FROM ME:

It is obviously a political stunt, and the question itself is unnecessary.  The women, Greenpeace and Khordorkovsky are different people with different crimes to their names, thus they may or may not all be political prisoners.

Pussy Riot, in my opinion, deserves punishment. As much as they may try and deny that they were trying to inflict any sort of hatred with their performances, they obviously were. The simple fact that their performance was staged at a church demonstrates that. Even though I am not religious myself, it is clear to see that they were degrading religion by using The Virgin’s name and parodying a holy prayer.  Though I believe the punishment was over exaggerated and that it was in part fuelled by the subject matter and the fact that they were opposing the state, I still do not believe that they should be considered political prisoners. Western organizations like Amnesty International have reason to deem the Pussy Riot performers as political prisoners. Since they do not support Putin’s regime, it is in their interest to call the women political prisoners and attract negative attention to Putin’s government.  Try to disregard the media, which are constantly telling us that these women are not political prisoners, and ask yourself if they did indeed commit some sort of crime. Even in a democratic state, they did. They firstly disturbed the peace by screaming and attracting attention in public, they secondly were blasphemous, by degrading the name of what is holy to people, at a holy place. They offended a lot of people, which was wrong.

What Greenpeace did was not that bad, and I don't agree with the decision to jail them. I am not informed about Khordorkovsky and I thus cannot make statements about him. 

There are different forms of protest and the form they did was not the most potent. It degraded the women themselves and something holy. They could’ve performed protest without degrading something holy.

Truthfully, they probably wouldn’t have received such a harsh punishment had they protested the opposition, but that is the same in all places, even in the West.  The most basic form of ruling states that the opposition needs to be eliminated; it is the goal of all leaders. Naturally, you want more supporters and fewer opponents, so it makes sense that Putin wanted to get rid of them.

They weren’t jailed politically, but because the West made their jailing political, the release will be political. Whether or not Putin is being magnanimous in having such a successful year politically, or if he simply wants to do the best for his country by releasing the women and giving incentive for western leaders to attend Sochi, is questionable.  

Stars

Stars is a word that most people associate either with the tiny yellow things that we see in the night sky, or celebrities. Stars however, is so much more than that. Stars is a band from Toronto. They aren't words to describe the love I feel for them. Using the words amazing, incredible, sublime, perfect etc., are all understatements. Stars are beyond perfect, they are the best band to ever release music. Even their music is not worthy of being called music - it is art. Auditory flowing gold, and saying anything else would be an offensive remark. I know, I'm a hipster because I adore them, right? Sure, I don't mind, call me what you will.

I first heard Stars perfection two years ago. Changes was the first song that I was ever honoured/blessed to listen to. I watched the video, and even though she is naked, it didn't take anything away from the song. It is such a poetic song with beautiful lyrics. The music, though monotonous, is impeccable. Changes encouraged me to look into this new band, which would later grow into an obsession. Honestly, I didn't think that there was going to be any song with the ability to match up with Changes, but I was wrong. I also thought that Changes was a one off, and that maybe they got lucky with the song. Once again, I was wrong. Changes was only a gateway to some of their even more wonderful music for me.

The next song that I discovered has been my favourite for the two years now: Your Ex-Lover is Dead. These lyrics are so moving and fantabulous that they actually made me bawl my eyes out. Like a lot of their music, the lyrics deal with death. But this is not the kind of death music that you'd expect. It is so pretty and perfect. The video is also sweet. It is a little bizarre at first glance, but looking at it again makes you see more.

The final song which I fancy A LOT was Dead Hearts. My dad introduced me to this song after watching Like Crazy, and hearing the song. He thought it would be my style, and he was right. Apparently, he had no clue that Stars was my favourite band - which I still slightly doubt. Anyway, I listened to the song on repeat for the rest of the day. It was SO good! The lyrics deals a little with mortality, as do many of their songs. Regardless, there is something beautifully haunting and enchanting about both the voice and the music, which actually really suits the lyrics.

Stars continual ability to match lyrics, with vocals, with music, perfectly makes them the best band ever!!

Stars have not come close to receiving the attention they deserve. Stars has made this world a better place with their music. Stars deserve to be stars, yet society does not recognize them. Perhaps they will be like all great minds - appreciated enough only after they are dead. Too bad. 

A Poem to the Love of My Life

This is a poem that I have written to the love of my life. Considering the fact that I've used some give away names in the poem, I've decided to black them out. 

Forever and eternally, my heart shall be yours. 

My affection is in your hands. 

My devoted soul rests upon your bosom. 

Adoration beyond my heart's limit overflows towards your beauty. 

When I see you, it is like I see the sun,

For your consistent grace gleams into the very depths of my retina.

Your magnificent blue eyes penetrate my aura

They encourage me to be a better person each day.

In times of hardship, a simple glimpse of your well being is enough to repair my troubled soul.

Your fair skin cuts through the crowd and makes it's way to my marrow

Your sandy mane stands out amongst the rest

When I am lost, it guides me back to you 

In my darkest hour and day

A simple look at you makes me gay

I sneak a glance, hoping you don't notice

For I will never be good enough

Your gentle voice whispers stories

About Siberia, about morning glory 

I learn your life, I learn to forgive

I learn to love,  I learn to live

I feel the passion burn like a fire

My need for thee is dire

Each day without you is a death

Each day with you is my heart's content

I spend each eve in a desperate search

For a way to come close to you - a towering birch

Playing fruit ninja upon you navel

Was like drinking honey from a ladle

You are like a god to me

Perfect in every way

If only you would see

The love which lay - 

In the crevasse of my heart

A cavity filled and dripping

As if penetrated by a dart

Ready for you to take by ripping

Do not be enticed by mafiosos called dfsbjdh

They will never care for you as much as the llama

The llama I am, which mines endlessly for your love

The mafioso called sdfshdjb, who flys away like a dove

Do not let your love sag to another

Cherish our time together

Though there is temptation like fdbjvdf

The love we have is forever

Hipsters

Hipsters, oh hipsters! What is it that makes me so indecisive about you? I can't figure out if I love you or hate you! There are some parts of the stereotypical hipster (from the mainstream view) that I admire, and there are other parts that I'd like to exterminate. In fact, since the hipster culture evolved and became popular - I mean became recognized as a culture, I've been collecting some funny pictures of hipsters. Now, I know that there is at least one hipster in my English class, and many more in my old school, and around Vancouver in general. So Sherry, J.S., Safiya and Max - please don't feel hurt.

Basically, my problem with hipsters is that they try too hard to not be mainstream. Here's an example: A few days ago, I was reading Sherry's English blog - it's a great blog. Now she is the self-proclaimed "Canadian Hipster", and there was a line in one of her blogposts (Pumpkin Spice Latte) where she said something that got me thinking. She was brutally honest and I commend her for that. In the post, she expressed her newly found love for the Starbuck's Pumpkin Spice Latte; she also explained the 3 reasons that she hadn't tried it sooner. The first -and most prominent- reason was the it seemed "too mainstream".  Can you imagine?! Avoiding trying something because too many other people have tried it. See, that thought process makes no sense whatsoever to me. 

When I hear that something is REALLY good, I go out and try it. The way I look at it is: Not everybody is retarded. So, if a couple people like something, there's a chance that it actually sucks. However, if a majority like something, then it is most likely worthy of all that love. But that's not always the case. For example, a lot of people really liked Drake's song "Started from the Bottom". When I heard the song, I realized that it was horrid. Probably one of the worst songs ever to cross my innocent ears. But do I regret listening to it? No, not at all. It made me a more rounded person and I learned something - I really don't like that song at all, and Drake's voice is extremely annoying. It doesn't seem like much, but it didn't kill me. I know, some will say that I could've done something more productive in those 4 minutes. But the truth is, productivity is in the eye on the beholder. And it is possible that those few minutes spent listening to Drake's song were indeed productive. Now that I'm done that short rant about trying things out, let me continue. 

So apart from the fact that these hipsters refuse to try things that may be amazing due to them being too mainstream, they also have a bright side. I appreciate that they really try and fight the power, but the problem is that they're not good at it. Their style of protest is the sit-in, and that doesn't achieve much.

They go around riding their bikes and saving the environment, but do they really have an impact? Nope, they probably feel like they do, though. You know why they don't have a big impact? Because they're too chill, they just relax about everything. To actually contribute, you have to be motivated, and be ready to die for your cause, and hipsters, well, aren't. When they fail, they shrug it off and say that they tried their best, and that that's what counts. That's a lovely philosophy to live by, but it isn't the way to achieve anything. Another option could be that they're simply too lazy. 

The fine line between hipsters and hippies. Do we really know the difference? I guess it's all in perception. In my mind, hippies wear tie-dye shirts, hipsters don't. What else? Hippies have long hair, hipsters don't. This is a fine-line, and can probably be easily crossed. This also cements my point that they don't achieve much. The hippies didn't achieve much, though they were constantly protesting. I'm pretty sure that the same thing will happen with hipsters. They draw their inspiration from hippies, and they are too cool to care.

I love the picture above. I love it. It is exactly what my new neighbors look like. I think that they're a cute couple and their kids are SO cute. The only problem I have with my new neighbors is the conversations I hear them having with each other. No, I am not a hipster stalker. But I am usually locked out of my apartment when I get home, and they're always talking next door. Here's the first issue:  right now, I am sitting outside, locked out, waiting for my mom. These hipsters are talking about how the building has a bad recycling system. Look, I don't live in a ghetto, but there is not one person in this building that cares about the recycling system. Really, it's pretty useless. See, that is annoying to me, not the fact that they want to recycle, but the fact that they're making it such a huge deal. Another thing that didn't bode over well with my non-hipster fellow neighbours was a small note that the hipsters posted on the door of the elevator. These hipsters, unlike many, don't smoke. In fact, they have asthma.

Our building is noted as a non-smoking building, but nobody really obeys the rule. I guess that the hipsters thought that nobody would smoke in the building, but people did. My family doesn't smoke, in fact, my father hates the smell of smoke that we have to put up with on a daily basis. But does my father go out, post a note on the elevator door that states the no smoking rule and kindly lets people know that if they have any questions they can contact him. NO! My father is not insane. That is exactly what these hipsters did. RETARDED! Anyway, their note was torn down within about 4 hours of being put up. By whom? The smokers on my floor. Out of the 8 units on my floor, 4 disobey the rule on a daily basis. Nevertheless, my neighbours are lovely people who really love hipster music.

Next, they started talking about how their friend had just arrived downstairs and they had to go pick him up. Their hipster friend had obviously arrived on a bike, disregarding the fact that it is -4 C outside. Anyway, then the male hipster started telling the female hipster all about the sadness he felt because the friend had a seat made of "the coolest, biodegradable plant residue"or something like that. GOSH!! REALLY?!?! Would his life be so greatly improved if his seat was all magical and decomposed like a piece of fruit that had been left on the counter for too long? Probably not, but he still decided to nag about it. Anyway, this is where the funny stuff started. The friend walked in with the male hipster and the adorable, little son. He said hi to the female hipster and the other kid. Then he gave the Ziploc container, which he had brought, to the female hipster. I heard cries of joy and many thanks being given. At that point, I thought that he had just brought her his heart on a silver platter; instead he bought/made her some Tabbouleh Salad. Yes, I did overhear all this, their door was still open, and the walls of our building are paper thin. He then went on to explain his process of making Tabbouleh Salad: Canada's least common dish. Look, Vancouver is as multicultural as can be, but I still bet that 8 out of 10 people would not know what the hell Tabbouleh Salad is, if you were to ask them. How do I know? My mom runs an awesome cooking blog called Zexxy's Wife, where she posts a bunch of ethnic food, and makes it for us at home. I appreciate the fact that they're trying new foods, but I hate the fact that they are then pretending to love them so much. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and Tabbouleh Salad really is the tastiest thing to have ever crossed the guy's palate, but it probably wasn't. He was probably just trying to be cool and ethno.

This is a whole other breed of hipster. The geeky hipster. This is the kind of hipster who you look at and wonder about. You ask yourself why they have 0% body fat and 0% muscle. Anyway, I don't really know them all that well, but they seem better than the regular hipsters. The problem with these ones is that they are usually reliant on their mommies and daddies for money. Luckily for them, their mommies and daddies are usually loaded. They are the ones that don't want to get jobs because they want to pretend they're artists. Of course, like all hipsters, they enjoy peaceful protests. They just annoy me because they're lazy bums. That statement was slightly hypocritical of me, as I am a lazy bum myself.

I picked this picture because I really think that it portrays the poser-ness of hipsters, and I appreciate that. Also, it shows off most of the appearance that leads us to believe that someone is a hipster.

I picked this picture because I actually disagree with it. See, I don't think that the hipster in the picture looks like a hipster. I think that he looks like a pimp. It could just be the jacket, though.

Oh my! I like this outfit. I don't think that it looks like a hobo at all! Though the remarks on the picture are pretty witty, and mostly true. What else? Ah yes! The style. Don't get me wrong, I think hipsters are awesomely dressed, but I think that by being so well dressed they contradict their whole personality. All hipsters have a similar style and they follow the trend of what to wear. They're all dressed pretty similarly, after all, that's usually how we distinguish them from society. Now, am I the only one who sees how this contradicts them? In case I am, let me explain: the whole hipster ideology is to be your own person, and not to buy into the stuff that is popular. By buying the clothes that all hipsters wear, you're following a certain trend!!! Ha! And that is a mortal sin in hipsterdom.

Since hipsters pretty much originated in Portland, I thought that it'd be fitting to end the hipster pictures with a Hipsterius Portlandia. Again, a very accurate representation of a hipster. Most of the time, hipsters don't come across as elitists, but you never know. I think that it is part of the hipster culture to promote equality amongst everybody. That's why hipster women and hipster men have pretty much the same body shape. Women don't have boobs, hips, or long hair. Men aren't any different. Apparently, hipster females do not appreciate it when a man works out and gets muscles, because then he is not equal to his female counterpart.

Thanks for reading my rant on hipsters. I know that it was mostly an extremely biased and unliberal analysis of a sub-culture that could be great. I used many generalizations and stereotypes, but hey, I expressed my opinion, and that's what hipsterdom is all about! Now go listen to some hipster music. It's my favourite kind of music and I say that in all honesty.

EDWARD SNOWDEN AND THE USA

I'm sure that everyone here is aware of the NSA spying documents that were recently leaked by Edward Snowden. If not, here's a brief summary:

Basically the United States' National Security Agency was spying on not only other countries' governments and people, but on their own American citizens, too. They were spying through the phones and the internet, and through various other methods. This is similar to how the Stasi used to spy on suspicious persons in East Germany in the 1950s, 60s, 70s and 80s. See, the difference is that, unlike the Stasi, who are/were widely viewed as oppressive and terrible, the US is not. The US is thought of as a good country for the most part. Does a good country, one that is supposed to set an example for others, spy on it's own populace? Probably not, but this is exactly what the US was doing. In fact, they were even tapping the phones of world leaders. Take Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, for example. After Snowden leaked the files about the spying, and after the Germany Intelligence Agency did a small investigation of it's own, she called Obama and asked something along the lines of: "are you bugging my mobile phone?" Obama didn't have much to say except "no comment." Later, a US spokesperson for the Whitehouse claimed that, "no one is bugging the Chancellor's mobile phone." Let's be real, though. The US probably was listening in. Another incident occurred when François Hollande, President of France, called Obama to ask about the allegations that the USA was reading the text messages of millions of French citizens. Even the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, said that they went too far with the spying. This was obviously an extremely horrible thing to do, and it was pretty much illegal, according to privacy rights statements from around the world.  

So, now that that's cleared up, let's get to the point. The US wants to charge Edward Snowden with espionage and a flurry of other charges! The man who simply made the people aware of the horrible things that were happening to them. Doesn't it seem pretty retarded that the US is admitting to "going too far" with the spying, yet looking to jail the person that announced this? 

America is a fascist country, that is quite apparent. Though they enjoy preaching freedom to other countries, they don't seem to be able to allow anyone to live their lives in freedom. They are a modern day totalitarian regime. They feel like they are entitled to the whole world, and that they have the right to impose their ideology on everybody. They feel like they are entitled to spy on anybody. This is absurd!

Let's go back to Snowden. There are actually people in the US that do not work for the government, who support Snowden's jailing. The people who the crime of invasion of privacy was committed against support having the man who told them about it incarcerated. Edward Snowden told people that they were having their rights violated, and those same people call for his arrest. This proves that the American public is brainwashed, totally and absolutely. Their own government was spying on them in the same way that the Stasi were spying on East Germans. Ironically, the US professes that the Stasi were horrible people, and that they were horrible communists that didn't let their people do as they please. Wait, does the US let it's people do as they please? On paper, yes. In reality, no. They spy on those people, and take advantage of them. Well US, if the Stasi were bad for spying on their people, what are you? See, the US isn't just spying on it's own citizens, rather on other countries' citizens, too. So the US is pretty much the WORLD'S BIGGEST DICTATOR! :) 

There are of course US citizens who support Snowden, but it is appalling that there are any at all that are opposed to Snowden. This is why I'm writing this post. To show that the American government is today's most oppressive country. 

The US has enough pride to admit to spying, and then, instead of bowing their heads and apologizing, call for the arrest of the man who opened the world's eyes! Edward Snowden is a modern day hero, and should be hailed as one. He shouldn't have to seek asylum, his country should allow him to stay. I hope with all my heart that a country offers Snowden asylum - he deserves it. I hope that the American people open their eyes and give Mr. Snowden the credit he deserves. Most of all, I hope that the world is able to recognize and call the bullshit that is the US of A. If the American people had any free thinking ability they would revolt, and overturn their government. If they did, the government would never do anything like this again. But sadly, the citizens of the US are mindless, and the government is good at creating propaganda.

Thomas Jefferson said "when the people fear their government, there is tyranny. When the government fears it's people, there is liberty." Dear readers, the US citizens fear, and should fear, their government. Their government is tyrannical, not only to the US, but to everybody else in the world, too. If the US government feared it's people, if it feared any sort of revolt, they wouldn't be able to muster up the courage to spy on them. There is no liberty in the US.   

Pierre Trudeau once said: "the government has no business in the bedrooms of the people." This statement is obviously morally right, and it shows what a great man Trudeau was. Mostly however, it shows what a horrible fleck on planet Earth the US is. It's due to fail. I hope that it changes it's governing skills for the better - and quick, because sooner or later, somebody is going to get fed-up with the most dictatorial nation in the world.

Debate Terms and Important Things: Cross-Examination Style Debate

Hey y'all! I know that this is an English blog. However, considering that my extreme love of debate is intertwined with English, I thought that it would be appropriate to post this guide to debate. Hopefully it inspires you to debate some more! It is such an important skill, and can help you with everything! Presenting, writing, eloquence and improvisation can all be improved with debate! Try it out!

DEBATE TERMS AND IMPORTANT THINGS:

CROSS-EXAMINATION STYLE

BY: NATAŠA MIĆOVIĆ

UNIVERSITY HILL SECONDARY SCHOOL

Vancouver, BC

September 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Foreword………........………………...…………………....3

Resolution………………………………...……….…..…....3

Proposition/Affirmative…………….…...…….....………....3

Opposition/Negative…………….……..……….…..……....3

First Speaker……………………..…….……………...…….3

Second Speaker…….……..………………………………...4

How to Start…………….………………..…………………4

Hook……………………….………...……………..............4

Defining the Terms…………………………………….…...5

Signposting…………………………………………………5

Points/Argument…………...…………….…………….......6

Acronyms- S.P.E.R.M……………………..………………7

Acronyms- S.E.X.Y….……………………...……………..7

Cross-Examination….…………………..……….…………7

Question Line…….....……………...………………………7

Rebutal…………..…………………………………….........8

4 Kinds of Evidence………….……………………………..8

Closing/Summary Speech..………………………………...10

How to End…………………………..…………………….10

Always Use “We” ………………..………………………...10

Judges the Judges……………..……………………………10

FOREWORD: Hey guys! These are some of the things that have really helped me in debate. They are the important terms. I’ve written the definitions to the best of my ability. I hope that you guys understand everything, but if you don’t feel free to ask me. These are the things you need to know. I know that it’s really long, but I slaved over this manual this weekend. Most of the stuff is basic. Good luck to you on all your future debates! If you ever get lost, just remember that debate is like an essay, the format is very similar. If I’ve missed anything, let me know. I might just publish this one day, as the “GREAT DEBATER’S HANDBOOK!”

THE RESOULTION: Usually starts with “Be It Resolved That (BIRT),” “This House Believes That (THBT),” “This House Would (THW).” It is the topic that you’ll be debating.

E.G. This House Would Decriminalize Cannabis

PROPOSTION/AFFIRMATIVE: The team that is arguing for the resolution.  There is a first speaker and a second speaker. The first speaker has two 4 minute speeches, the second speaker has one 7 minute speech. Both speakers will also cross-examine a speaker from the other team for 2 or 3 minutes.

Yes! Cannabis should be decriminalized!

OPPOSITION/NEGATIVE: The team that is arguing against the resolution. There is a first speaker and a second speaker. The first speaker has two 4 minute speeches, the second speaker has one 7 minute speech. Both speakers will also cross-examine a speaker from the other team for 2 or 3 minutes.

No! Cannabis should NOT be decriminalized!

FIRST SPEAKER: The first speaker gives a 4 minute opening speech, and a 4 minute closing/summary speech. They’ll have a cross-examination period in between, which lasts 2 or 3 minutes. They introduce the points, breifly elaborate on one in the opening speech, and then prove why their team is right in the closing speech by providing a summary of the debate.  

SECOND SPEAKER: The second speaker is the elaborator, their job is to elaborate on the points in the second speech, bring in facts and solidify all the statements made by their team. They also should use some time to rebut some statements from the other team during their speech. They will also have a cross-examination period of 2 or 3 minutes.

HOW TO START: The usual way to start a debate and to introduce yourself to the debate in a fancy way is a simple string of memorized words. Both the first and second speakers can use a variation of this. The example, however, is more suited to the first speaker. Through your time in debate you’ll find that a lot of debaters like to start their debates like this:

Ladies and Gentlemen, honourable judges, worthy opponents and esteemed colleague(s). We are gathered here today to debate the resolution of: THW decriminalize cannabis. We on side proposition/opposition firmly believe that the resolution must and will stand/fall. There are 3 main points that my colleague and I will be discussing during our speeches. Firstly, {INSERT YOUR FIRST POINT HERE}, which I will elaborate on. Secondly, {INSERT YOUR SECOND POINT HERE}, which my partner will elaborate on. And lastly, {INSERT YOUR THRID POINT HERE}, which my partner will also be elaborating on.

HOOK: A hook is a fairly effective way to start a debate. It’s a go to option for novices and experienced debaters alike. This is the first speaker of both sides job in the first speech. The second speaker pretty much never uses a hook, nor does the first speaker in his/her closing speech. A hook is meant to entice the people to listen and care about your debate. It's usually really cheesy, but it works. These are the hooks I used last year for a Child Labour debate:

PROPOSITION: Imagine! A world of equality, one in which there is no such thing as child labour. One in which no certain country is superior to it's neighbouring nation. One in which no one human is better than his fellow man. Ladies and Gentleman, honorable judges, worthy opponents and esteemed colleauges, such a world is not out of reach. It can be achieved; how? Simple: by allowing child labour in developing nations, and allowing them to develop to the extent of Canada, or any other developed country.

OPPOSITION: Imagine! 250 million more children in school, at home, not being abused and not being exploited. Having one of the most important things a child could have: a childhood. It's not impossible, all we have to do is abolish child labour.

OR:

Imagine waking up after just 6 measly hours of sleep, walking miles to your job, just so that you can be abused and exploited. Now imagine 250 million children -some as young as 4 years-  going through that suffering each and every day!

DEFINING THE TERMS: This is the first thing you do in your speech as first speaker of the proposition. However, if you fail to do it, it becomes the first speaker of the opposition’s job. This is where you take the words in the resolution and define their meaning.

NOTE: YOU CANNOT DEFINE THE TERMS SO THAT THE DEBATE BECOMES ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE OTHER SIDE TO DEBATE. THAT IS CALLED “SQUIRRELLING,” IF THE OTHER TEAM CALLS YOU OUT FOR IT, YOU LOSE POINTS. IF JUDGE NOTICES YOU DOING THAT THEY CAN REALLY MESS UP YOUR SCORE. DEFINE THE TERMS FAIRLY, OR SLIGHTLY AND SUBTLELY TO BENEFIT YOU. NEVER GO TOO FAR WITH HELPING YOURSELF.

We, the proposition, would like to clarify some of the confusing major terms in the resolution before we get into our arguments. We define “This House” as the Federal Government of Canada. We define decriminalizing as not being legal, but not being a law enforcement priority. This is for recreational marijuana use. This would only apply for small amounts, like 2 ounces or less. We also would not allow it to be sold in stores. Lastly, we define Cannabis as a slightly psychotropic drug that can be smoked.

SIGNPOSTING: Sign posting is the second thing you do as the first or second speaker of either side. Since you have your arguments prepared, you state them in the order that you’ll be speaking about them in. You can also VERY briefly say what they’re about, if that isn’t already clear. This is to help the judges follow you, and to break up your speech a little, so that it doesn’t seem like a long blabbing. Also mention who will be speaking about each point.

Today we have 3 major points that we will be speaking about. Our first point, which I will elaborate on further in my speech, will be that decriminalizing cannabis will greatly contribute to our economy. The second point, which my partner will be elaborating on, will be how decriminalizing cannabis will help our global reputation by making us a more progressive and liberal nation. And the third point, which my partner will also elaborate on, will be that decriminalizing cannabis is part of a free country and technically included in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

POINT/ARGUMENT: These are the main things that your team will be speaking about in your speeches. They are what you want to focus on, and they are what you mention for your signposting. There are usually 3 main points on each side of a debate. The proposition has their 3 points for the resolution. The opposition has their 3 points against the resolution.

For the Proposition: “*” is a sub point

1.    Economy

*Less police needed

*Money can be put towards more important things like social services

2.    Global Reputation

*Other countries look up at Canada

*Canada will seem more liberal

*We will be on the forefront of modernizing laws and seem like a progressive country.

3.    Freedom for the People

*We should do let our people do what they want, when they want according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

*It’s dictatorial of us to not allow the people something they want.

For the Opposition:

1.    Harmful to Health

*Cannabis can cause various health problems.

*We can’t allow our people to have preventable health problems

2.    Harmful for Children

*Children will start to use it from an early age

*Sets a bad example

3.    Protect People from Themselves

*The government has a duty to protect its people from making the wrong choices

*They can do what they want, but only to an extent.

So what do you do when you can’t think of enough/any points? You follow the acronym: S.P.E.R.M.

S: SOCIAL

P: POLITICAL

E: ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT, AND ETHICS

R: RIGHTS, RELIGION

M: MORALS, MILITARY

These are the aspects that our society finds important, thus it is most relevant to bring up points relating to those aspects.

How to state a point and in what order:

Follow the acronym: S.E.X.Y.

S: Statement

E: Explanation of the statement

X: Example of the statement

Y: Why? Why is it important?

CROSS-EXAMINATION: This is the 2 or 3 minutes after your opponent's speech that you have to ask them questions. You should be taking notes during their speech, so that you can remember what they said and what you want to counter with. Don’t go directly into telling them that they’re wrong. Try to get them to admit that they are. This is called a QUESTION LINE. It is when you start off your questioning with a question that has an obvious answer.

Do you believe in the fundamental freedoms?

{They’ll say yes!}

Then don’t you think that the people should have the right to choose what they want to do with themselves. And that a government that imposes upon what the people can freely do is in a way a totalitarian government?

{They’ll say yes!}

AND NOW YOU HIT THEM!:

So then shouldn’t people be allowed to smoke cannabis, if they wish?

{Now you’ve put them in a corner, they can try and squirm out by saying “no,” but they probably won’t succeed. The judges will have noticed it!}

REBUTAL: When you criticize/poke holes in your opponent’s arguments. This happens during your own speech, not during the cross-examination time.

1. Logic - to say that the other side is wrong is not enough. You have to show why the other side is wrong. This is best done by taking a main point of the other side's argument and showing that it does not make sense. Because a lot of the thinking for this needs to be done quickly. This is one of the most challenging aspects of debating.

2. Pick the important points - try to rebut the most important points of the other side's case. You will find that after a while these are easier and easier to spot. One obvious spot to find them is when the first speaker of the other team outlines briefly what the rest of the team will say. But do not rebut those points until after the other team has actually presented them.

3. `Play the ball' - do not criticise the individual speakers, criticise what they say. To call someone fat, ugly or a nerd does not make what they say wrong and it will also lose you marks.

Before I go into my constructive speech, I would just like to point out some of the flaws in my opponent’s speech. They said that if we decriminalize cannabis our global reputation will improve, however this is false. If we allow our people to harm themselves by using a gateway drug, our global reputation can only decline.

EVIDENCE: Evidence can win or lose a debate, and it usually does. {Now this doesn't mean that you should pack your speech with so much evidence that peoples' heads start to explode.} Even if you're the smoothest talker out there, you still have to have some evidence to back up your points, otherwise the other team is going to win. The evidence is the proof that you're not just making up everything. There is evidence for every point, you just have to dig deeper to find it in some cases. Finding evidence is much easier in prepared debates, as you have the internet and other sources on hand. In impromtu debates however, you have to rely on those things that you've heard/saw/read sometime before to provide evidence. There are 4 main types of evidence that are used in debates, they are:

STATISTICS: The numbers. They are the hard, undisputable facts. This is the most valid form of evidence since it can't be denied, only countered with other statistics. Use it wisely, though. Use a few, strong numbers, but don't over-do-it. You don't want to have a lot of crazy numbers in the judges' head, but you want to have enough to make him feel that you're right. Remember that this is a speech debate, not a math/probability competition.

EXPERT OPINION: The opinion's of the smart people in the world. This is the second strongest kind of information. Our society -and the judges- value the thoughts of published authors, philosophers, world leaders etc.. They'll believe you if you quote/note that somebody that's considered intelligent said/confirmed what you just stated. Keep in mind that whoever you mention should be well respected. You should NOT quote infamous people like Hitler (unless your debating, and your judge is a member of the Aryan Brotherhood – this is HIGHLY unlikely.) Think about how the person is percieved by Western culture, then decide if it's smart to quote them.

COMMON SENSE: This is the third most effective kind of evidence, purely because it's not universally agreed upon. What may be common sense to you, may be totally foreign to your judge, so beware when doing this. Only use things that seem REALLY obvious, like “everybody knows that smoking can put you at higher risk for respiratory illneses.” This makes sense, just about everybody agrees on that statement. And you don't even need a number to prove it because it's such an obvious statement. On the other hand, something like “Gabrona is the capital city of Botswana,” is not known/considered by the majority, and therefore it is not common sense.  

YOUR OPINION: This is the type of evidence that you should use the least. Why? Well to put it simply, unless you've won a Noble Prize on the topic you're debating, nobody cares what you think – okay, maybe your mommy does, but that's about it. Also, if you use too many personal opinions it can seem like you haven't prepared, or as if you don't have any hard facts to support your statements. Remember that your debating, not telling your life story. Don't use anecdotes unless they'll really help, or unless you have NOTHING better to say.

“When I pass by some stoners I can smell their weed. I don't like weed and I don't want to feel as if I'm getting high, too. By permitting cannabis, I'm going to feel like I'm getting forced to inhale the poison, when I don't want to!”

See, you can complain, but it doesn't really have any weight on the debate.

SUMMARY SPEECH: A summary speech is given by the first speaker. The oppostion will give their summary speech first, usually after a brief intermission. In the summary speech, you need to show that your team has won the debate. There are 2 strategies that I like to use, and I find that they’re effective. The first one is the 3 points, the second is the 3 questions. In the 3 points, you bring in the 3 main/most debated points, and you show how your team was right on all 3. In the 3 questions, you bring up the points in question format, and say that your team answered them correctly. This gives the judges a really clear idea of your speech, and helps them see why you were right. You also want to say how the other team failed to rebut your points, and how you managed to rebut their most important points. My old coach used to say that in your summary speech, you need to seem like somebody who watched the debate, not like someone who participated in it. You restate what was said in the debate, and how your team was right on all of it, and how the other team was wrong on all of it.

HOW TO END: This is the usual way to close your speech as both the first and second speaker. It’s also a good way to reitirate for the judges your points and make them feel like you’re right!

Ladies and gentleman for the reasons brought forth to you today by the proposition/opposition {INSERT FIRST POINT HERE}, {INSERT SECOND POINT HERE}, {INSERT THIRD POINT HERE}. We believe that the resoluton must and most definetly stand/fall. Thank you!

ALWAYS USE “WE”!: In debates, it’s imporatant to talk in 1^st person plural form. This makes your team look like it’s united and as if what you’re saying reflects that of everybody in your team.  

JUDGE THE JUDGES!: Judging the judges can really make a difference in your debate. If you see a woman who looks really emotional and not very logical, then you know that you should include more emotional notes in your speech. On the other hand, if you see a stiff, rigid businessman, you know that you should focus more on the numbers.