Defending Things You Don’t Believe In: Only In Debate!
Just like what I recounted in this now-obsolete post titled Memoirs Of A Retired Collegiate Debater, debating really does expose you to the possibility of defending ideas and concepts - even those who you do not necessarily believe in. It becomes more challenging when you’re asked to defend things that you don’t necessarily believe in.
A few days ago, I had to be the Leader of Opposition for the motion This House would ban government funding of religious schools. The government had a fairly weird definition (the government should stop funding religious PRIVATE schools- wtf?!) so I challenged it (i.e. stated that the given definition was false and presented a better definition and clash).
What was my stand?
Since public schools are de facto Roman Catholic schools due to the inherent trappings of the church in the curriculum (praying before meals, religion classes and first communion sponsorships), it is obvious that the government is paying for the forwarding of the Catholic religion. We have to negate this by making sure that other major religions are represented as well! So the counter proposal is let’s make government fund INC, Aglipay, Muslim and Protestant public schools as well! Yay! Hahahaha
This is my LO speech. This contains my definitional challenge and my set of cases aimed to defend the idea of having government funded religious schools.
This is my reply speech - practically an oral adjudication that is biased towards our side.
Bookmark at:StumbleUpon | Digg | Del.icio.us | Dzone | Newsvine | Spurl | Simpy | Furl | Reddit | Yahoo! MyWeb
Viewed 2229 times by 947 viewers
on 
Two or so years ago a college debating team from Ontario won the International debating tourney, by preparing to take any side of the issue.
But that aside, we here, in the Province of Ontario believe in the universality of Publicly Funded Education, that the biggest School sytem other than the Public system also enjoy full public funding. and the opposition party is proposing that if they win the next government next election (coming this October 10) all other religious schools should also get Government fundings.. thanks..
so arguing for the sake of argument is just okay?
just a thought.
^ Yes, it’s a mental exercise - for those who like thinking, at least.