3E5 Debate 4: National Service should be mandatory for women


Pre-debate vote: For- 13; Against- 11; Undecided- 11

Post-debate vote: For- 16; Against- 13; Undecided- 6

The numbers show that people were listening very carefully. They couldn’t help it- this was one passionate debate, with articulate and well prepared speakers, and a topic that seems made in heaven for the avid debator.

Proposition: NS is more than military defence. Other countries have women in the army, and the effectiveness of women in frontline combat positions can be seen in many situations. Also, given our ageing population, every pair of hands counts, and technology can be unreliable. NS can be a form of education for women, through which they can show their support for their country and defend it.

Opposition: it is not necessary for women to do NS because of presence of technology, which is a better resource to tap on. There is no proof that women in all countries are the same, so the same rule cannot be applied to all. Even sports have different standards for men and women, and when we do not have enough people in the first place, adding women will not make much of a difference.

Wow! A burning issue indeed! Your views please?woman.jpg

8 thoughts on “3E5 Debate 4: National Service should be mandatory for women

  1. First of all i would like to thank the opposition team for their active participation in the debate. This made the debate interesting. Second of all, I find that it is unfair that the opposition speaker gets to do 1 extra rebutall. For this rebuttal they can tell the audience a lie and the audience have to believe it when it is said in a firm voice under debate conditions. But it is fine as we can continue our debate here. But unfortunately, I have forotten the second rebuttal the opposition team made and cannot continue the debate…. What a pity!!!

  2. ermm.
    clearly i’m a girl,
    so i wld definitely say that it should not be mandatory.

    i’m not saying this because i’m afraid of the pain, torture and yellings from a commander.
    Women are responsible for taking care of the family.
    They are also not mentally and physically strong like men are.

    & yeah.
    our population is too small.
    we can’t afford to give up our women on national service.
    that’s my opinion.

  3. Dear Paul Pratyush,

    how come the first sentence of your response sounds so familar? Lets say that if the proposition team really did a good job in stating all the points and facts and rebuttal right. Why must the proposition team be so mindful that the opposition team gets another chance to rebutt? In a debate, you do not take any chances nor risks. Am I right? Also, if the second rebuttal was really a great deal to you, you would have remember it! So, it does seems like you are coming up with an excuse? haha. It not because I am from the opposition team, therefore I am siding the oppo. However, audience are not people without brains. They will have their own opinions. I said this because if the audience really believe in the “lie” according to you, then why would you, the proposition team, still win?

    P.E.A.C.E, everyone did a great job.

    signing off,

  4. Wenjuan- I like the way you slam Paul and then end with a call for peace! Typical female, some might say… 😉

    So much has been said on this topic that I really don’t have that much to add, except that I’d like to share a personal viewpoint here:

    When I was around your age, I felt that women should do National Service. My ambition was to be a fighter pilot and I thought it was very unfair that in this area of work, the scales were so unfairly tipped in favour of men. I don’t know how much of this was because I was in a girls’ school, and really had no contact with boys at all.

    When I went to JC and saw boys for the first time, I realized that there was a huge difference between them and me that no amount of aggressiveness on my part could cover. They were just too loud and to strong. Believe me, I changed my mind about combat situations pretty quickly. There was no way I was going to share a trench with them!

    But my opinion about NS for women did not change. I felt that there could be training in nursing or some other support function that women could undergo, so that they would be useful in defending the country, effective in an emergency, and as focused as the boys about their patriotism.

    Then I got married at the age of 21. And that was when I felt that perhaps it was a good idea to spare the women those 2 years, because the two years’ delay in education and starting work means putting off having children as well.

    Now I have two sons, and I believe that NS will be good for them. But what if I had daughters? How would I feel then?

    I have NO idea.

  5. I must say that i am impressed by the way u phrased YOUR sentances so well, WJ. Did not expect that…

    “Why must the proposition team be so mindful that the opposition team gets another chance to rebutt?”- this is what you said wenjuan. I am not saying that we will not WIN the debate if we do not get the 2nd rebuttal. But we will have a disadvantage. But it is alright and my team accepts it.

    “Also, if the second rebuttal was really a great deal to you, you would have remember it!”- this is also what you said wenjuan. If i was to remember every small thing like this that happened in my life, I will forget the IMPORTANT things. It is impossible for a human mind to remember everything. You should know that!!! Hmp…

  6. Greetings Mrs. V, Miss Lee WJ, and Mr. Pratyush P.

    Regarding the issue Mr. Pratyush P. has raised, i would like to say that i cannot totally say the debate was a fair one too. However, it is unfair for his team, as well as the opposition team. Both sides suffered disadvantages, therefore since we can’t go against the format of the debate, the only thing we can do is STRATEGISE.

    In a debate, coming out with content and rebuttal is not enough. Especially for cases of debates like the one we had in February. Both sides of the house were clearly aware that only two speakers from each are allowed on the debate ground. Mr. Pratyush P., your team, as the proposition, was supposed to come out with a baseline and definition. What your group could have done is to come out with definitions of the terms which will benefit your group’s stand. The opposition was suffering at a strong disadvantage as they would follow your definitions as well as scope.

    The opposition had a chance more than the proposition to rebut. It is true that it is unfair, but by putting our more rebuttal-proned point for the second speaker to raise is a strategy we have used. Besides, other than putting our weaker point for the second speaker to raise, we have predicted what the proposition might say and have came out with rebuttals during our preparation. By having prepared rebuttals, we made rebuttals which were more concrete during the debate. However, the proposition is at a disadvantage as they cannot rebut what the second speaker of the opposition has said.

    In conclusion, both teams were given chances to put their opposing team at disadvantage and thus, a larger extent, it was a fair debate.

    The proposition has done a great job in persuading the floor that their stand is right but what they could have done to strengthen their stand is to firstly, predict what the Opposition would say and come out with prepared rebuttals (the second speaker of the Proposition, Zul, could have given a better rebuttal. he was confident and firm, highly commendable), secondly, come out with definitions and a baseline to make their stand stronger.

    It definitely would have been a debate a whole lot more exciting if both sides were given more time to prepare! (imagines how intensed it would be XD)

    Another thing i would like to raise, the Proposition has came out with a lot of statistics to prove the floor as well as the Opposition team wrong. Those statistics really managed to shoot the Opposition team down. The numbers managed to make the Proposition team sound intimidating! Keep up the good work and all the best for Inter-Class Debates! 3e5, THE BEST, THE BEST, THE BEST!

    Signing off,
    Brigitte O.


  7. Paul, spelling error please: “sentances”.
    okay lah, relax! 😉

    Came here as you told me to.. haha.
    Relax la (-_-)”, work on the upcoming inter-class debate instead!
    Prove me wrong on the stage. Gogo! =)
    3E5 THE BEST!! 🙂

    and i can’t believe i wrote that comment too. lol.. O.o

    Mrs V, haha, very long reply. 🙂
    Maybe many years later, it will be a must for women to join NS.
    Got a very strong feeling about it cos’ population rate is dropping in SG..
    Your wish may then hopefully be fufilled by your son’s daughter (if) =) haha.

    byebye!! =)

  8. Wow Brigitte. I am impressed by your ability to spot mistakes for both our teams (not sarcastic). Never mind, forget about the previous debate and concentrate on the upcoming interclass debate. Let’s work together to “shoot down” the debaters of 3E2-our first opposing team. By the way their debaters are Feizullah, Marcus & Justin (2E6 ’07).

    Yours sincerely,
    “Mr Pratyush P.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s