Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 11 views

    3rd Speaker Speech 2

    Uploaded by

    Jessica Chan
    The document summarizes the key points of debate between an affirmative and negative side on whether a government should intervene to prevent gentrification. The affirmative side argues that gentrification leads to loss of culture and local businesses, harming the poor, and that prevention is better than mitigation. The negative side claims gentrification benefits society, but the affirmative counters each point by arguing gentrification's negative impacts outweigh its benefits and make it unsustainable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    3rd Speaker Speech 2

    Uploaded by

    Jessica Chan
    11 views2 pages
    The document summarizes the key points of debate between an affirmative and negative side on whether a government should intervene to prevent gentrification. The affirmative side argues that gentrification leads to loss of culture and local businesses, harming the poor, and that prevention is better than mitigation. The negative side claims gentrification benefits society, but the affirmative counters each point by arguing gentrification's negative impacts outweigh its benefits and make it unsustainable.

    Original Title

    3rd speaker speech 2

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes the key points of debate between an affirmative and negative side on whether a government should intervene to prevent gentrification. The affirmative side argues that gentrification leads to loss of culture and local businesses, harming the poor, and that prevention is better than mitigation. The negative side claims gentrification benefits society, but the affirmative counters each point by arguing gentrification's negative impacts outweigh its benefits and make it unsustainable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    11 views2 pages

    3rd Speaker Speech 2

    Uploaded by

    Jessica Chan
    The document summarizes the key points of debate between an affirmative and negative side on whether a government should intervene to prevent gentrification. The affirmative side argues that gentrification leads to loss of culture and local businesses, harming the poor, and that prevention is better than mitigation. The negative side claims gentrification benefits society, but the affirmative counters each point by arguing gentrification's negative impacts outweigh its benefits and make it unsustainable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.

    As the affirmative side, our team strongly agrees to the


    motion. Now I’ll elaborate the clashes of today’s debate and show why our side wins the clash
    and ultimately why we are taking this debate home.

    Clash

    1. What neg side said: Gentrification can benefit the government, the rich and the poor by
    improving quality of life.
    What we said: (1)Gentrification will only lead to the loss of govt’s legitimacy and weakened
    governance due to the dissatisfaction of ppl affected by gentrification. (1st)
    Gentrification only benefits the newcomers in the community. However, the poor are negatively
    affected by the social class transition.
    (2)Alternative methods such as new town development can also improve QOL.
    Why we win the clash: (1)What has gentrification brought to the community? Cultural
    displacement, destruction of the neighbourhood, loss of local businesses, which are all
    irretrievable/reduce QOL.
    (2) Alternative methods→ improve QOL, like what gentrification does, but also benefits both the
    poor and the government to a greater extent & w/o the occurrence of the negative impacts→
    more beneficial
    ===> In this case, why shouldn’t the govt intervene to prevent gentrification, the one with a
    higher social cost?

    2. What neg side said: Mitigation measures can be carried out to reduce the negative impacts of
    gentrification.
    What we said: The measures are impractical. E.g. cultural aspect: gentrification is displacing the
    culture.(2nd) Mitigation measures→ the real culture are commercialized, mitigation→ nothing
    but branding. Are the original cultures protected in this way? No.
    Why we win this clash: The whole community has already changed since there are newcomers/
    social class transition. The neg side is too idealistic. Mitigation measures will only be impractical
    in this case.
    Moreover, as we all know, prevention is always better than a cure. Why don’t we prevent the
    occurrence of these negative impacts before they really affect the community?

    3. What neg side said: Our side only focuses on the neg impacts of gentrification on the poor,
    neglecting the overall benefits to the whole community.
    What we said: These neg impact are the reason why the govt need to intervene to prevent
    gentrification since the government is responsible for protecting the benefits of the whole
    community. (1st&2nd)
    Why we win this clash: In gentrification, the poor ppl are the group who loses the most. Could it
    be fair to gentrify the communities even when the poor are disadvantaged? Therefore, the
    government should intervene to prevent gentrification to safeguard the interests of every parties
    in the community.
    4. What neg side said: Gentrification is needed for sustainable development in long-term.
    What we said: Gentrification→ Cultural displacement, destruction of the neighbourhood, loss of
    local businesses→ irretrievable (1st&2nd)
    Why we win this clash: Sustainable development→ social, economic, cultural aspect
    Due to the above neg impacts, gentrification will only makes it no longer sustainable

    5. What neg side said: More opportunities and larger exposure will be provided to local
    businesses due to increased consumers/ newcomers with better economic condition
    What we said: Gentrification→ Increasing rent (2nd)
    Why we win this clash: The neg side premises the argument on an incorrect assumption→
    assume that the local businesses can afford the skyrocketed rent
    The local businesses will only be displaced but not benefits.

    6. What neg side said: Building public housing estates in gentrified communities.
    What we said: Gentrification→arrivals of the middle income ppl→ upward grade of the
    community (1st)
    Why we win this clash: Building public housing estates→ not gentrification at all→ downward
    grade (misconception)

    Conclusion

    Ladies and gentlemen, as explained by our first and second speaker, gentrification will only
    bring harm to the community by destroying the neighbourhood, displacing the original culture
    and local businesses, which makes it no longer benefits the whole community. What the
    government should do is promote fair and justified development. So, why shouldn’t the
    government intervene to prevent gentrification to safeguard the interests of every parties in the
    community?

    Thus we are proud to say that the motion today must and will stand. Thank you.

    You might also like