Debate | COMM - Argumentation & Debate, Quizzes of Effective Business Communication

Class: COMM - Argumentation & Debate; Subject: Communication; University: Queensland University of Technology; Term: Forever 1989;

Typology: Quizzes

2015/2016

Uploaded on 07/19/2016

benjcornwell
benjcornwell 🇦🇺

1 document

1 / 3

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
TERM 1 DEFINITION 1
With the vast differences and individu ality in our population,
working hours differ greatly between people due to several
different factors such as age, financia l status and family size. Good
evening Ladies and Gentlemen. Ton ight we will prove to you that
having a maximum numbers of work ing hours per week would not
only be detrimental, but unnecessar y.
TERM 2 DEFINITION 2
Tonight, as first speaker, I will be speak ing about firstly, the fact
that the government has no right to intervene and to determine a
blanket law on a vastly diverse nation , and secondly that the
greater social mobility caused by hav ing no limit to the working
hours per week, allows for a better ov erall quality of life for the
population. However, first of all I would like to rebut several flaws
in the affirmative teams case.
TERM 3 DEFINITION 3
I will now move on to my first argume nt. My first argument tonight
looks at the fact that the governme nt should have no right to
intervene and implement a maximu m number of working hours.
Government intervention in this cas e is wrong for several reasons:
Firstly, by implementing a blanket rule applied to everyone, the
government cant cater to individual situations.
TERM 4 DEFINITION 4
Several factors like economic status , education, race, age and
family size can all have large impacts on the amount of hours
needed to work a week by an individu al, purely for the survival of
their family. In this situation, we believ e that the individual would
be more informed about their own po sition, and the way that their
choices can affect their financial pos ition. Secondly, there is no
need for the government to interve ne.
TERM 5 DEFINITION 5
We believe that the only time we w ould allow the government to
intervene would be when there we re no benefits and very high
harms such as drugs, unsafe work co nditions or abusing workers
as a direct result of having no working hour limits. But why is this
not one of these situations, ladies and gentlemen? Obviously, we
already have systems in places to pre vent certain kinds of
problems, and when they do occur, it is not a direct result of
having no working hour limit.
pf3

Partial preview of the text

Download Debate | COMM - Argumentation & Debate and more Quizzes Effective Business Communication in PDF only on Docsity!

With the vast differences and individuality in our population, working hours differ greatly between people due to several different factors such as age, financial status and family size. Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen. Tonight we will prove to you that having a maximum numbers of working hours per week would not only be detrimental, but unnecessary. TERM 2 DEFINITION 2 Tonight, as first speaker, I will be speaking about firstly, the fact that the government has no right to intervene and to determine a blanket law on a vastly diverse nation, and secondly that the greater social mobility caused by having no limit to the working hours per week, allows for a better overall quality of life for the population. However, first of all I would like to rebut several flaws in the affirmative teams case. TERM 3 DEFINITION 3 I will now move on to my first argument. My first argument tonight looks at the fact that the government should have no right to intervene and implement a maximum number of working hours. Government intervention in this case is wrong for several reasons: Firstly, by implementing a blanket rule applied to everyone, the government cant cater to individual situations. TERM 4 DEFINITION 4 Several factors like economic status, education, race, age and family size can all have large impacts on the amount of hours needed to work a week by an individual, purely for the survival of their family. In this situation, we believe that the individual would be more informed about their own position, and the way that their choices can affect their financial position. Secondly, there is no need for the government to intervene. TERM 5 DEFINITION 5 We believe that the only time we would allow the government to intervene would be when there were no benefits and very high harms such as drugs, unsafe work conditions or abusing workers as a direct result of having no working hour limits. But why is this not one of these situations, ladies and gentlemen? Obviously, we already have systems in places to prevent certain kinds of problems, and when they do occur, it is not a direct result of having no working hour limit.

If there are any contracts where the workers are coerced into

working more than they want, then we already have laws to

protect them, and in no way is a maximum number of

working hours going to be more effective or overcome all the

harms that come from government interference.

TERM 7 DEFINITION 7 I will now move onto my second point. My second point looks at the increased social mobility that comes from no working hour limit, and the way that this benefits society overall more greatly than by having a working hour limit. Social mobility is essentially movement of families, individuals or households within social strata or classes. overall better economically advantaged society. TERM 8 DEFINITION 8 We, the negative team believe that this is simply not true. Under the affirmative teams model, we would have two workers, working at the same, equal (but low) weekly amount of hours. Although we have equality in this situation, the amount of money made by these two workers, will not be enough for them to move onwards and upwards in the social ladder, only to maintain an average or acceptable lifestyle. TERM 9 DEFINITION 9 Under our model, we would have one of these workers in the same job position, but working a very high amount of working hours a week, essentially taking the place of both workers. Although by doing this, we would leave the other worker unemployed, this would allow for better social mobility as the employed worker can quickly earn enough money to get a better house, pay off debts etc. TERM 10 DEFINITION 10

Soon enough, this worker can move on to a better job,

leaving the spot open for the unemployed worker. This cycle

continues on, and we strongly believe that it is more

beneficial to have one worker in a good position and one

unemployed than two employed and equally paid, but badly

compensated workers.