Second proposing speech
Dear debaters, dear readers, we’re all living in a
perfect and wonderful world. There’s no point in criticizing, everything is fine
the way it is.
Well, it may depend on the reader, but I think that
most of you would probably object my first statement, saying that it’s actually
pretty far from reality. Fair enough, I may agree with you, but by doing so I
would also have to admit that even my second point, the fact that there’s
nothing that should be changed or criticized, is pretty much indefensible. (Continues below.)
By AD
By AD
Second opposing speech
Dear
debaters, dear readers, we believe that the member of the proposition team is trying
to deceive you. They fiercely pretend that France is a country to bash, as it
is the trend in the English and German media. And yet, they have chosen to come
here, to study in a leading French engineering school where they receive a high
quality education, for free. How ungrateful! If you vote in favour of the
proposition, you can be sure they won’t even thank you. (Continues below.)
By AC
Second proposing speechBy AC
Dear debaters, dear readers, we’re all living in a
perfect and wonderful world.
There’s no point in criticizing, everything is fine
the way it is.
Well, it may depend on the reader, but I think that
most of you would probably object my first statement, saying that it’s actually
pretty far from reality. Fair enough, I may agree with you, but by doing so I
would also have to admit that even my second point, the fact that there’s
nothing that should be changed or criticized, is pretty much indefensible.
So, most of us would agree that we should change
something in the world we live in, therefore we should criticize its actual
state and bash all of its flaws and defaults. Let’s call “France” this world
and “Frenchbashers” those people that clearly attack our system’s problems: why
should we oppose them? How can we oppose them, when, if we were in their shoes,
we would probably do the same? Do we honestly believe that we should turn a
blind eye to everything? Awareness is the first step towards progress and
improvement, let’s not prevent it.
Our brilliant opposition showed us that there are two
main points that we should debate: the role of the media in our society and the
concept of “being right”. Let’s discuss their analysis, showing why they’re
mistaken.
First of all, it’s true that the media are often
biased, but this works in the two directions: if it’s true that the media could
exceed in their “bashing process”, it’s obvious that they could also excessively
hide the real problems. Furthermore, the simple statement that the media have a
strong social and moral responsibility doesn’t prove at all that Frenchbashers
are wrong.
Then, they gave a definition of “being right” in two
contexts, an absolute and a moral one.
Clearly, we can’t defend the motion that Frenchbashers
are completely and absolutely right, because, as the first writer explained,
such perfection it’s humanly impossible, so there’s no point in debating it.
Passing on to the moral sphere, I’d like to report
their definition here: “to be right is
not simply just saying the truth but saying the things that will influence his
audience the way that is beneficial according to the standards of the
moral”.
So, basically, “being right” is telling something
quite close to the truth that will benefit the audience accordingly to its
moral standards.
Should we really go along with this? Personally, if I
read elsewhere this definition, I would have thought that it was a discussion
about “being hypocrite”, not about “being right”.
I’d like to ask them some questions: for example, what
is a “moral standard”? Or, where’s the truth in telling things in a way that
makes them beneficial for the audience? Isn’t it like seeing the world through
some colour lenses? And finally, who should decide what is beneficial? Are they
suggesting the media themselves, which we admitted to be biased in the
beginning?
We’re grown-up people: we ought to know what really is
going on, even if it could have a negative impact on us.
So then, let’s correct the definition: “being right”
is telling the truth while avoiding unnecessary harm to the people involved and
accepting the possibility of receiving by the ones we’re targeting the same
actions we take against them.
Well, Frenchbashers only exercise their freedom of
thought and speech, so they do respect these points. Furthermore, even if they
were to state something completely false, they would be easily contradicted and
proved wrong, like in the famous case of the price of a half liter of milk in
Paris. Obviously, this would result in a credibility loss, which they obviously
don’t want to have: they’re all the more interested in telling us the truth.
As my colleague showed, nowadays there really are some
economic, social and cultural problems in France. Frenchbashers give us the
possibility to see them from another point of view, one that isn’t necessarily conditioned
by the very system we’re living in.
Frenchbashers are right and their attitude and its
effect are, in the end, constructive for us: by starting to think about how we
could change their opinion, we actually rebuild our world in a better way.
So, dear debaters, like James Thurber said, “Let us
not look back in anger, nor forward in fear, but around in awareness.” Let’s
accept the Frenchbashing and the positive effects it implies and let’s open
ourselves to the critics we receive, because, as stated by Abraham Maslow, “What
is necessary to change a person is to change his awareness of himself.”
Finally, please, let’s bash the opposition. Dear jury,
dear public, I beg you: vote for us.
AD
References
Second opposing speech
Dear
debaters, dear readers, we believe that the member of the proposition team is trying
to deceive you. They fiercely pretend that France is a country to bash, as it
is the trend in the English and German media. And yet, they have chosen to come
here, to study in a leading French engineering school where they receive a high
quality education, for free. How ungrateful! If you vote in favour of the
proposition, you can be sure they won’t even thank you.
From
the great help France given the American during the American War of
Independence to the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, to
recent event in Mali and in Central African Republic, France’s influence on the
shape of today’s World is not to be proven. People fail to see the greatness of
France and often, as pointed out by the brilliant speech of my colleague from
the opposition, they present inaccurate facts. The entire belief that French
people have no entrepreneurship, in the wake of President W. Bush, saying that
in France, there is no word for “entrepreneur”, forgetting that the very word
“entrepreneur” comes from French, is an example of such a deception.
The
proposition advocates that French workers are non-productive. We are going to
show you that it is a lie. French workers have worked an average of 38 hours
per week, while EU average is 32.1 [1]. And when we consider the weekly
productivity (number of worked hours a week * productivity per hour), France is
5th in EU with 1,722€/week (while Germany is 8th and the UK
is 11th) [1] [2]. Nevertheless, they are pontificating about
France’s methods. Maybe they should clean their side of the street first.
Facts
can demonstrate, for example, that taxes are higher in the UK than in France
meanwhile France has far better infrastructures and healthcare (the best in the
World). But it is not a lecture on France strengths and we are going to stop
here with the facts. The readers who want to know more about figures can find
more information here [3].
We
can forgive foreigner for the lack of insight they have on France because it is
not their country and stereotypes travel faster than accurate information. On
the other hand, for French people who are guilty of Frenchbashing, we can’t.
You have the right not to share the ideas of the government (as the majority of
French people do, according to recent polls) but how can you bash the very
institutions that gave you so much, from the day when you are born, with a free
health system, to today, when you receive a free education, and you benefit
from all the infrastructure. It has never been that easy to move in this World
and yet, you still live in France, complaining about your own country. Maybe
the situation isn’t as bad as you want our venerable readers to believe.
My
colleague also addressed another aspect that this debate raises: is the Frenchbashing
beneficial? He demonstrated that French people do not need to hear your
criticism, especially if they are not accurate since they are aware of the
issues and it worsens the relationship between France and the rest of the
World. I want to address this question from your point of view. For you, what
is the point of conveying a negative image of another country? We believe that
bashing a country, where fundamental freedoms are protected and the people is
not oppressed, is never right. Gossiping is a very poor attitude and gives a
very bad image of you. As Socrates puts it “Strong minds discuss ideas, average
minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people”.
Please,
do not be that kind of person, and keep Frenchbashing for the next football or
rugby match to come against your national team. We will be happy to meet the
challenge. Merci, et s’il vous plait, votez pour nous! (Thank you, and please,
vote for us!)
AC
Dear proposer,
ReplyDeleteyour new point it that French peolple need to be aware of the facts pinpointed by the frenchbashers. I completely agree, but as I read your speeches I did not learn a thing about France, because I already knew what you mentionned. I think that French people, since they are living in the system, are already perfectly aware of its current situation...