INTRODUCTION SPEECH: MODEL I Why do events like the Tiananmen Square massacre or the killings in Kosovo shock us?

Because, as a general rule, we believe that killing our fellow human beings is wrong. Why were allegations of voting irregularities in the 2000 US Presidential election so emotive? Because, as a general rule, we believe that democracy is a good thing, and that it is important to respect the principles of a fair election. MODEL II The government has an obligation to censor violence in the media, because media violence causes significant harm to people, particularly to young people. Violent media causes people to be violent. We know this because of the large number of violent crimes that are committed by people who had been watching violent movies and playing violent video games. MODEL III It is true that many violent people watch violent media. However, many nonviolent people also watch violent media as a form of entertainment, but suffer no harmful effects. The more logical conclusion is that there are many other causes for violence violent people watch violent media because they are violent. MODEL IV Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and posed no tangible threat to any other nation Attacking Iraq was unprincipled and inconsistent given the global response to weapons of mass destruction programs in North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel

MODEL V Lets look at the concept of integration of product. This is one of the main issues that the whole anti-trust action is about. Ten, fifteen years ago, when you bought a car, the thought of it having a radio nup. Air-conditioning no chance. Sunroof no chance. Dot, dot, dot. Those things were expensive, hard-to-obtain extras that everyone wanted and had to go out of their way to get. Computers have developed in exactly the same way. Not just Microsoft, but every single one of Microsofts competitors IBM, Apple, Sun, Novell have been integrating product into their packages throughout the process. Microsoft are simply better at it. So it comes that if you buy a Microsoft product, and you get Windows thrown in, that is nothing more than product integration.

MODEL VI we will prove that feminism has failed it has failed: to bring attitudinal equality, and failed to bring equality of opportunity. We define failed as meaning that feminism has failed its core objective, which we see as being the achievement of substantial equality between men and women. In this debate, we will use two criteria to judge whether that equality exists.

First, there must be attitudinal equality meaning that our societys attitudes respect women as much as they do men.

Second, there must be equality of opportunity meaning that women have access to positions (such as jobs or political appointments) on the basis of their merit. Today, we will show you that feminism has failed on both counts.

LINK BACK
What does this argument show? First, the governments attitude, as representative of societys attitudes, fails to properly acknowledge womens special needs. This shows our first criterion, that feminism has failed to bring any kind of attitudinal equality. Second, I have shown that women are materially disadvantaged in the workforce, because they cannot access adequate childcare support. This means that women with the same level of competence and qualification as men will nonetheless not have the same opportunities in the workforce as those men which shows our second criterion.