

Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Class: COMM - Argumentation & Debate; Subject: Communication; University: Queensland University of Technology; Term: Forever 1989;
Typology: Quizzes
1 / 3
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!


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.
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