Closing Proposition Speech
With this debate nearing its end, I would like first to point out the frailness of the opposing team’s arguments. Both opposing speakers basically opposed old people with young people. To sum up their idea, old people are taking young people’s jobs. This reasoning is a blatant fallacy. To begin with, if the solution to youth unemployment was so clear cut, governments wouldn’t be so keen to encourage grey-haired people staying in the workforce. More importantly ...
Closing Opposition Speech
Dear readers, this debate is about to end. Some interesting theories have been proposed by the proposing team; too bad interesting is not synonymous with feasible and that the proposing team was unable to see the real world as it is and not from a selfish point of view. To clarify what has been said by both sides, I will resume the arguments advanced by my fellows’ colleagues from the opposing team and show you, by the simple use of logic sense, how those arguments make the proposing team -and the motion they try defend- non serious...
Closing Proposition Speech
With this debate nearing its end, I would like first to point out the frailness of the opposing team’s arguments. Both opposing speakers basically opposed old people with young people. To sum up their idea, old people are taking young people’s jobs. This reasoning is a blatant fallacy. To begin with, if the solution to youth unemployment was so clear cut, governments wouldn’t be so keen to encourage grey-haired people staying in the workforce. More importantly, the very idea that young unemployed people and people who will continue to work past the retirement age are competing for the same jobs is a misconception. Young unemployed people are mostly people with lower level qualifications. On the contrary, people who will continue to work after the retirement age will be highly qualified people. As a matter of fact, it simply makes no sense for a company to keep hold of an aging low-skilled worker, as he or she is paid higher wages and can be easily replaced by a young person with a better physical condition.
Also, Georges defends the sophism that abolishing the mandatory age means the end to our French contributory pension scheme, of our social values. It is a false belief; I’ll let you refer to Christophe’s speech in which he demonstrated that ending mandatory retirement is compatible with our current pension scheme and more, that it might be the only long-term solution to save it. Georges also links the pension problem with the current economic crisis. Alas, this problem is all but conjectural: the demographic shift in the proportion of paid workers and retiree, the rise of life expectancy is in no way linked with the crisis. This issue was debated thirty years ago and we are still debating it. At the end of his speech, Georges brings pathos to this debate by telling us the touching story of a factory worker who will have to work 5 more years with no benefit.
However, this is a deceptive argument. Firstly, as his teammate Paul said, even we keep a mandatory retirement age, people will have to work longer to compensate the demographic imbalances. They seem to contradict themselves a little bit. Secondly, again, as demonstrated by Christophe, ending mandatory retirement age will help to balance the pension scheme and consequently will enable us to keep the indicative retirement age comparatively lower.
On the other hand, the proposing team has made strong points in favor of ending the mandatory retirement age. Clarisse and Javier showed you that the mandatory retirement age is an anachronism, artifact from a time with low life expectancy and much more rigorous work conditions. Also, they reminded us that the right to work is a human right and is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Christophe demonstrated that ending mandatory retirement is a viable and long-term solution to the problem of pensions. Also, he established that saying that a young person is more entitled to a work position that an older is simply discriminatory.
Overall, I can’t help but notice that the opposing team has proposed no viable alternative to solve the equation of a dwindling workforce and a booming number of retirees. By opposing all reforms, they are postponing the financial burden to the next generation.
The opposing team should stop clinging to outdated privileges, adopting the ostrich-like approach is leading us to disaster. Let’s be bold and not afraid of change. Progress in medicine enables us to live longer and healthier; as avid readers of glossy magazines, we all know that “60 is the new 40”. This should be an opportunity, not a burden. We should not be afraid of progress, on contrary, we should embrace it. No one reasonable can deny that we are capable to work longer. Who are we to judge a person incapable to work only because his ID card states he or she is over 60. So be the change, be progressive, and vote to abolish this unfair and arbitrary mandatory retirement age.
Closing Opposition Speech
Dear readers, this debate is about to end. Some interesting theories have been proposed by the proposing team; too bad interesting is not synonymous with feasible and that the proposing team was unable to see the real world as it is and not from a selfish point of view. To clarify what has been said by both sides, I will resume the arguments advanced by my fellows’ colleagues from the opposing team and show you, by the simple use of logic sense, how those arguments make the proposing team -and the motion they try defend- non serious.
First of all, the proposing team opened the debate, holding that, from a selfish point of view, it is unfair for someone who likes his job, to be forced to stop at certain age like for example doctors…I would like to remind you that a doctor can exercise his profession with a self-employed status, and he actually can retire whenever he wants. They also underlined the fact that it was against our freedom, and mentioned many countries where the age of retirement has been delayed but they did not show us why it was for them something good to do.
On opposition to that weak argument, of course we conceded that delaying the age of retirement has to be taken into account due to the terrible economical situation of France right now. But still there MUST BE an age of compulsory retirement. Because if we abolish such a measure, we will have to face the fierce truth of the economic cycles. As Paul.R and Paul.G mentioned, such a decision will imply, on the long term, a massive unemployment in the youth, and after decades it will provoke the demand for young men to do some unqualified jobs. When you will be happy doing your job, how will it make you feel to see your children or grandchildren fighting to find a job…?
Finally the proposing team tried to propose a brilliant, fair and feasible new complex system of retirement in…200 words. We have to recognize that they try to find solution, but a solution to what? The national debt created by the bill of the pensions? Yes, once again we agree with you when you speak with all your brain, it is an important problem. We know, as you know, that delaying the age of retirement is associated with the reduction of the pension. But what you don’t see is that if we abolish compulsory retirement, first we will have to face dangerous situations like: a pilot of a commercial plain aged of 70, or as it has been said in a comment, a surgeon aged of 80 about to operate on you (which I am sure, you don’t want to experiment). And in addition to that, Georges reminded us that the French people have struggled to have the social status we have now. It is a security for workers to have the possibility to retire at a certain age and keep earning money. With such a law you cannot be forced to work for an employer after a certain age to keep earning a leaving.
Dear readers, our team believes on what we defend, but we are not narrow minded. If the proposing had showed us other arguments than the security of our freedom (which I remind you is selfish considering the massive unemployment it will provoke) and a pseudo model of retirement system, our team will have conceded more than two points. But the fact remains that if we still believe in the compulsory retirement, it is just because we think about our future but most of all we think about the next generation’s future. Every country envies our social laws. If you don’t want to make them change their mind, please vote for us.