Ms Goh's GP blog

Dear 03/10

Please use these constructive comments to achieve our motto: BE BRILLIANT!

DEBATE 1 MARCH 03/10

This house believes that young people are selfish and apathetic.

Prop Speaker 1:

1) Definition given.
2) Spending time in front of computers  no interaction with ppl  selfish & apathetic?
3) Lack of interest in politics  selfish & apathetic?
4) Just care about their own studies and career and not care about matters to do with the nation.
5) Everything is set up for them so they don’t participate in politics therefore selfish and apathetic??? WHERE’s the link???
6) No evidence given 
7) More materialistic therefore? STOPPED.
8) LINK NOT GIVEN
9) Need to show more confidence and fluency. Needs more energy.

Opp Speaker 1:

1) Rebuttal  computers can’t be blame for selfishness. Obama uses computer right? Good rebuttal
2) Case division given.
3) Kids are stressful? How is this related?
4) Volunteer work done cos’ they care for others than for portfolio
5) Pronunciation is not clear.
6) Evidence given. Good example given.
7) More good things in life. So they’re willing to enjoy the good life? So how is this linked/ relevant?

Prop Speaker 2:

1) Rebuttal: Obama is NOT a young person. Correct. Students do CIP only as part of the curriculum  Scope is NOT just Singapore!
2) Only care about how they feel  selfish & apathetic.
3) Example from Japan. Known to be selfish and apathetic. Not say good morning  so???
4) 62% of ??? say they’re apathetic. 85% say they’re rebellious. JAPAN/?????
5) China –reference to authority. One-child policy  self-centred next generation.
6) Care only about themselves.
7) Pronunciation not too bad.
8) Fluent and understandable.

Opp Speaker 2:

1) Rebuttal: Computers can be used for raising awareness. Upbringing??? But this does not disprove the motion.
2) Passion & engagement in environment, social, economic issues. So NOT ALL are passive about ALL these matters.
3) Survey:
4) Clear speaker with confidence and some interaction with audience. However, there can be more energy.
5) They CAN BE LESS selfish. So are they or not?
6) Students have passion but there are no platforms for them to demonstrate their passions.
7) America: 3 ppl? Who are they? Their parents are politicians so they have an avenue for participation.

Opp Speaker 3:

1) Weak enunciation.
2) CIP done for CIP hours? How many do after their academic studies are over?
3) NO rebuttal?
4) No eye contact? No confidence.
5) Summary/ Conclusion: No clear line of argument.
6) GROUP: Limited area of coverage.

Prop Speaker 3:
1) Summary: Care more about themselves. Political & Social factors.
2) Rebuttal: Using computers  much time  less interaction with their peers BUT did not clearly kill the opp.
3) Rebuttal: CIP causes one to be more caring and less apathetic. So out of point since youth are already apathetic.
4) Confident and loud and interacting.


This house believes that the Singapore education system has been effective in preparing the young people for the future.

Prop Speaker 1:

1) Definition clear in particular of the education system. But how much of this is relevant?
2) Reading. Some eye contact but not enough. No energy.
3) Evidence/ reference to leaders of Singapore as proof of effectiveness but more elaboration is lacking.
4) practical vs academic

Opp Speaker 1:

1) Rebuttal
2) World class system but does not adequately prepare???
3) Widen the gap between the different classes. So not all prepared. NT students???
4) Confident and energetic and loud.
5) For the best  they’re the best and become complacent.
6) RJC student who put up insensitive comments. The elites are the capable and the only class capable. Elite teacher who could not adapt to neighbourhood school. They look down on common class  working society. Can’t adapt to a more diverse types of people. Luckily the link is consistently made.


Prop Speaker 2:

1) Reading but clear attempt to eye contact.
2) No rebuttal.
3) Effectively prepare – different stages? How to prove that it has been successful? Ss should be able to … but is it effective?
4) Instead of exams, there are other programmes to prepare students in presentation/ speaking skills. Communicating and thinking skills taught. Increase in oral exams weightage. Developed from young.
5) Academically inferior??? Exp. ITE prepares the students of a lower academic ability.

Opp Speaker 2:

1) Rebuttal: points out the weakness in whether they show effectiveness. Changes  effectiveness? Only primary school syllabus?
2) Expressive. Interacts with audience and eye contact.
3) Elitism is relevant?
4) teacher-oriented. Spoon-feeding.  ss’s mindset is that there’ll be feeding and no need to go beyond the syllabus. This creates a dependent generation which hampers them in the future and in the workplace. The school environment is very different from the real world.
5) exam-oriented. Future is dependent on exams. Exam-smart vs knowledge. Social skills??? Interaction with society?

Opp Speaker 3:

1) Enunciation is not very clear.
2) Rebuttal: elitist mindset? In the students of branded schools so they’ll not be prepared in the future. ‘lousy’ mindset?? Exp???
3) Confident. But need more eye contact.

Prop Speaker 3:
1) Rebuttal: points out the weakness how they keep harping on elitism. Pri syllabus  idea not clearly brought out.
2) They become mature.
3) Prepare their mental abilities.
4) Pronunciation & enunciation is somewhat of a struggle.
5) Learn in educational institutions like Polytechnic.
6) Wide range of opp to develop strength.
7) Life and soft skills brought out.
8) But did not tackle the idea of exam-oriented education system.
9) Concrete and specific examples.

• 
• 
• 
• 
•