Children should have the right to retrospectively sue their parents
for physical and mental trauma, upon attaining thr age of majority
~AFFIRMATIF
First speaker
1. Children should have the right toretrospectively sue their parents for physical and
mental trauma upon attaining the age of majority because it allows them to seek justice
and compensation for the harm caused to them
Anak-anak berhak untuk menuntut orang tuanya secara
retrospektif atas trauma fisik dan mental setelah mencapai usia
dewasa karena hal ini memungkinkan mereka untuk mencari
keadilan dan kompensasi atas kerugian yang menimpa mereka.
2. This right is essential for promoting intergenerational trust and respect, as it enables
children to hold their parents accountable for their actions
3. By allowing children to sue their parents, it encourages open communication and
understanding between family members, fostering a healthier and more supportive
environment
*SECOND SPEAKER*
1. Children can sue their parents for past trauma after reaching adulthood, because
technically there are no special rules that prohibit this type of lawsuit.
2. By allowing children to sue their parents, they can provide a sense of validation for the
pain and suffering or trauma they have during experienced over the years of their
growth.
3. In cases of harassment, neglect, physical or psychological violence as well as
exportation legal claims can apply which have the function of who may otherwise engage
in abusive behavior, knowing that they could face legal consequences in the future.
*Third speaker*
1. Children should have the right to retrospectively sue their parents for physical and
mental trauma upon attaining the age of majority, as it provides them with a legal
remedy to address past wrongs.
2. This right is consistent with the principle that children have the right to respect and
protection from their parents, as enshrined in various international human rights
treaties.
3. Retroactive lawsuits can serve as a deterrent for parents who may otherwise engage in
abusive behavior, knowing that they could face legal consequences in the future
4. By allowing children to sue their parents, it promotes the principle of "the best
interests of the child" and prioritizes their well-being and protection
~OPPOSITE
*FIRST SPEAKER*
1. Children should not have the right to retrospectively sue their parents for physical and
mental trauma upon attaining the age of majority.
2. Retroactive lawsuits can lead to complex legal disputes and potential conflicts between
family members, undermining the stability of family relationships
3. The concept of "parental immunity" is crucial for maintaining a healthy balance
between the rights of parents and the rights of children. This immunity protects parents
from being sued by their children for the normal exercise of their parental
responsibilities
4. Allowing children to sue their parents for past trauma could lead to a breakdown in
family relationships and could cause more harm than good.
*SECOND SPEAKER*
1. Children should not have the right to retrospectively sue their parents for physical and
mental trauma upon attaining the age of majority.
2. Retroactive lawsuits can lead to complex legal disputes and potential conflicts between
family members, undermining the stability of family relationships
3. The concept of "parental immunity" is crucial for maintaining a healthy balance
between the rights of parents and the rights of children. This immunity protects parents
from being sued by their children for the normal exercise of their parental
responsibilities
*THIRD SPEAKER*
1. Children should not have the right to retrospectively sue their parents for physical and
mental trauma upon attaining the age of majority.
2. Retroactive lawsuits can lead to complex legal disputes and potential conflicts between
family members, undermining the stability of family relationships
3. The concept of "parental immunity" is crucial for maintaining a healthy balance
between the rights of parents and the rights of children. This immunity protects parents
from being sued by their children for the normal exercise of their parental
responsibilities
*waive diplomatic immunity in instances of alleged human rights violation*
~AFFIRMATIF
*First speaker*
1. Waiving diplomatic immunity in instances of alleged human rights violations is
crucial for ensuring accountability and justice for victims of abuse.
2. Diplomatic immunity should not shield individuals from accountability for
serious human rights violations, as it contradicts the principles of justice and
equality before the law.
3. By waiving diplomatic immunity in such cases, it sends a strong message that no
one is above the law, and it upholds the fundamental human rights of individuals
who have been subjected to abuse.
*second Speaker*
1. Waiving diplomatic immunity in instances of alleged human rights violations is
crucial for ensuring accountability and justice for victims of abuse
2. Diplomatic immunity should not shield individuals from accountability for
serious human rights violations, as it contradicts the principles of justice and
equality before the law
3. By waiving diplomatic immunity in such cases, it sends a strong message that no
one is above the law, and it upholds the fundamental human rights of individuals
who have been subjected to abuse
4. The proposal to frame human rights violations as employment/commercial
claims within existing exceptions to immunity provides a practical approach to
holding perpetrators accountable for their violations of human rights
*Third Speaker*
1. Waiving diplomatic immunity in instances of alleged human rights violations is
essential for holding individuals accountable for their actions and preventing
abuse of power
2. Upholding diplomatic immunity in cases of serious human rights violations
undermines the principles of justice and equality, and it can perpetuate a culture
of impunity
3. By waiving diplomatic immunity in such cases, it demonstrates a commitment to
upholding human rights and ensuring that victims have access to justice and
redress
4. The proposal to use recognized exceptions to immunity, such as commercial
transactions and employment contracts, to hold perpetrators accountable for
their violations of human rights provides a pragmatic and effective approach to
addressing human rights abuses
~Opposite
*First speaker*
1. Diplomatic immunity is a fundamental principle of international law that
ensures the protection of diplomats and their families from harassment, arrest,
and prosecution by the host country
2. Waiving diplomatic immunity in instances of alleged human rights violations
could lead to a breakdown in diplomatic relations between countries, which could
have serious consequences for international cooperation and peace
3. Diplomatic immunity is essential for the effective functioning of diplomatic
missions and the conduct of international relations, and it should not be
undermined by the pursuit of individual claim
4. The proposal to frame human rights violations as employment/commercial
claims within existing exceptions to immunity is not a practical approach, as it
could lead to a flood of frivolous claims and undermine the integrity of the legal
system
*Second Speaker*
1. Diplomatic immunity is a necessary protection for diplomats and their families,
as it ensures their safety and security while serving in foreign countries
2. Waiving diplomatic immunity in instances of alleged human rights violations
could lead to a situation where diplomats are afraid to carry out their duties, for
fear of being prosecuted for actions taken in the course of their work
3. Diplomatic immunity is a long-standing principle of international law that has
been recognized and respected by countries around the world, and it should not be
undermined by the pursuit of individual claims
4. The proposal to use recognized exceptions to immunity, such as commercial
transactions and employment contracts, to hold perpetrators accountable for
their violations of human rights is not a practical approach, as it could lead to a
flood of frivolous claims and undermine the integrity of the legal system
*Third Speaker*
1. Waiving diplomatic immunity in instances of alleged human rights violations is
essential for holding individuals accountable for their actions and preventing
abuse of power
2. Upholding diplomatic immunity in cases of serious human rights violations
undermines the principles of justice and equality, and it can perpetuate a culture
of impunity
3. By waiving diplomatic immunity in such cases, it demonstrates a commitment to
upholding human rights and ensuring that victims have access to justice and
redress
4. The proposal to use recognized exceptions to immunity, such as commercial
transactions and employment contracts, to hold perpetrators accountable for
their violations of human rights provides a pragmatic and effective approach to
addressing human rights abuses
*Modern world is toxic for our mental health*
~AFFIRMATIF
*First Speaker*
1. The modern world is toxic for our mental health due to the increasing
prevalence of mental health disorders such as anxiety and depression, which are
often linked to the pressures and challenges of contemporary society
2. Social media and technology have contributed to a constant barrage of
information and stimuli, leading to information overload and contributing to
mental health issues
3. The emphasis on productivity, success, and achievement in the modern world
has led to heightened stress levels and burnout, negatively impacting mental well-
being
4. It is essential to acknowledge the toxic nature of the modern world for mental
health and work towards creating a more supportive and compassionate society
that prioritizes mental well-being.
*Second Speaker*
1. The rise of social media and technology has led to a constant barrage of
information and stimuli, which can be overwhelming and detrimental to our
mental well-being
2. The pressure to succeed and the emphasis on productivity and achievement in
modern society can contribute to stress and burnout, further exacerbating mental
health issues
3. It is crucial to address the root causes of mental health issues in the modern
world and promote self-care and mindfulness practices to mitigate the negative
impact on mental well-being.
4. The pressure to succeed and the emphasis on productivity and achievement in
modern society can also contribute to stress and burnout, further exacerbating
mental health issues.
5. We need to take a more holistic approach to mental health, addressing the root
causes of these issues and promoting self-care and mindfulness practices.
*Thrid Speaker*
1. The toxic nature of the modern world for mental health is evident in the
increasing rates of mental health disorders and the impact of social media and
technology on individuals' well-being
2. It is essential to prioritize mental health and well-being in modern society,
fostering a supportive environment that encourages open communication and
understanding between individuals
3. By acknowledging the challenges posed by the modern world to mental health,
we can work towards implementing strategies and support systems to promote
mental well-being and resilience.
~Opppsite
1. The modern world is not inherently toxic for our mental health, as
advancements in technology and access to information have also brought about
positive changes in mental health awareness and support systems
2. While there are challenges associated with modern life, it is important to
recognize the positive developments in mental health care, such as increased
access to therapy, medication, and greater awareness and understanding of
mental health issues
3. It is essential to focus on building resilience and coping skills to navigate the
challenges of modern life, rather than solely attributing mental health issues to
the toxicity of the modern world
*Second Speaker*
1. The modern world has brought many positive developments in mental health
care, such as increased access to therapy and medication, and greater awareness
and understanding of mental health issues
2. While there are certainly challenges associated with modern life, it is not
accurate to say that the modern world is toxic for our mental health
3. Rather than demonizing the modern world, we should focus on building
resilience and coping skills to navigate the challenges of modern life
*Third speaker*
1. The modern world is not inherently toxic for our mental health, as
advancements in technology and access to information have also brought about
positive changes in mental health awareness and support systems
2. It is important to recognize the positive developments in mental health care and
the opportunities for support and intervention that the modern world has
facilitated
