Song that influences the world

Dec7

오빤 강남스타일
강남스타일

낮에는 따사로운 인간적인 여자
커피 한잔의 여유를 아는 품격 있는 여자
밤이 오면 심장이 뜨거워지는 여자
그런 반전 있는 여자

나는 사나이
낮에는 너만큼 따사로운 그런 사나이
커피 식기도 전에 원샷 때리는 사나이
밤이 오면 심장이 터져버리는 사나이
그런 사나이

아름다워 사랑스러워
그래 너 hey 그래 바로 너 hey

지금부터 갈 때까지 가볼까

오빤 강남스타일 강남스타일

오오오오 오빤강남스타일

강남스타일

오오오오 오빤강남스타일

Eh- Sexy Lady
오오오오 오빤 강남스타일
Eh- Sexy Lady
오오오오

정숙해 보이지만 놀 땐 노는 여자
이때다 싶으면 묶었던 머리 푸는 여자
가렸지만 웬만한 노출보다 야한 여자
그런 감각적인 여자

나는 사나이
점잖아 보이지만 놀 땐 노는 사나이
때가 되면 완전 미쳐버리는 사나이
근육보다 사상이 울퉁불퉁한 사나이
그런 사나이

아름다워 사랑스러워
그래 너 hey 그래 바로 너 hey

지금부터 갈 데까지 가볼까

오빤 강남 스타일 강남스타일

오오오오 오빤 강남스타일

강남스타일

오오오오 오빤 강남스타일

Eh- Sexy Lady
오오오오 오빤 강남스타일

Eh- Sexy Lady
오오오오

뛰는 놈 그 위에 나는 놈
baby baby
나는 뭘 좀 아는 놈

You know what I’m saying

오빤 강남스타일

Eh- Sexy Lady
오오오오 오빤 강남스타일

오빤 강남스타일

This song is one of the most popular song, not only in Korea, but also worldwide. Lyrics were not purposely translated in English, in which to preserve ‘Korean’ and enjoy music by music itself. This song made the 70 billion various different people into one. This song made other nations to have interest in Korea. This song and action became a language that represents Korea. Even when the president of the Korea and the US met, in the Blue House, the US president greeted our president by showing dance routine. Also, our president welcomed him with the same action. Gangnam Style broke a wall between others. It made everyone to be a friend.

THS attack Syria.

Dec7

This motion was highly issued politically and socially at the moment, when the biochemical weapon was launched against Syrian rebels. The status quo of Syria is serious. Rebellion occurred within the nation, and the government is protecting their presidency from rebels. There were also several violent-conflicts occurred, including death and killing, among Syrian rebels and the army. However, in this chaos, biochemical missile was launched against the rebels, as a result caused hundreds of death. The United States of America is trying to impose sanction on Syria, and even concerning to send military troops against Syrian government, for the peaceful purposes, because the States strongly believes that the only organization which can control and launch such high-technology-requiring weapon is Syria, the government itself.

I was the Opposition of the motion, which we claimed attacking Syria is neither reasonable nor justifiable. The opponent, which is the Government side, presented a simple logic, ‘Safety of the world’. They made their argument under hypothesis that the Syrian government is the highest possible suspect, which can launch biochemical weapon. Also, they build their case linking this hypothesis to the world security. They claimed if the Syrian government has the weapon; it is not only the problem of building biochemical weapon without approval, but also the problem of themselves as the most possible suspect, who actually launched it against their citizens purposely for aiming threat, therefore the US, the world police, needs to intervene in order to keep the world safe.

However, we rebutted their point by attacking their assumption. All of arguments that were made by the opponent stand when the hypothesis of Syrian government is a fact. But the Government neither proved nor presented reasonable evidences that can verify their setting. We, as a team, also rebuilt our case focusing on lack of evidence. We made Syrian government as an innocent victim of the invisible power of international society.

The United States wanted Syria to be gone since Israel and Pakistan problem, because Syria is an ally of Pakistan and protest against the US, so that they were looking for pretext to take control over Syria. However, the weapon accident in Syria was the great excuse for the US to get rid of Syrian government. The US took action on international society as if Syrian government is the actual one who launched the missile to their citizens. But, throughout all plans for sanctions and other actions, the US had never presented the reasonable evidence that can empirically prove the missile launch is done by Syrian government.

We, the Opposition, emphasized this point while rebutting, and presenting our case. We claimed no such action against other nation, such as sanction or attack, should take place unless we have proofs that show such nation is a threat to the world. We continuously pointed out that the Government failed to prove the Syria is an actual attacker, therefore their logic, which requires verifying the hypothesis in order to stand, collapsed. The Opposition took a moral high ground, by imaging Syria as a weak innocent victim, and addressed the wrong points made by the Government. Under the spirit of the motion, Government had their duty to prove Syria is an attacker, and the Opposition had burden to rebut the opponent. We successfully attacked the weak points, therefore took this debate.

Search engine, Naver.com

THBT Russia should abolish the law against promoting homosexuality.

Dec7

Resolution Paper

My position was prime Minister, the first person who starts the debate. It’s leading the Government. Therefore Prime Minister usually holds two main burdens; general duty for the debate, and the burden for the team. Firstly, Prime Minister has to set the route of the debate. Prime Minister has to clarify the motion and provide arguments so that the Opposition can actively engage with the thesis. Secondly, for the team, Prime Minister has to imprint their idea and policies to adjudicators’ brain. Prime Minister has to show and explain about general thesis and picture of their case.

<Prime Minister’s Role- order>

1. Urgency (Team stance)

By telling how serious the situation is, we can catch attention from adjudicator. Usually, Prime Minister tells the definition first, but it is much more efficient to tell the team stance at the beginning with the introduction speech to grab an attention and interest from adjudicator

2. Explanation

After telling the serious problems of the society/ law/ policy/ system etc., give a little bit of solution which our side will elaborate in future speech. Then, show adjudicator how responsible and moral our side is.

3. Definition

Clarify the motion. Sometimes, especially about policy debate, the motions are too vague. As an example, last year’s international debate tournament’s main round motion was ‘THW break the wall’. In this case, motion is too vague that people will bring out different concept about ‘wall’. Some maybe think about spiritual wall between North and South Korea, but the others may think about wall between nations such as taxation. Like such, for better understanding and engagement, Prime Minister has to limit the motion through providing definition.

4. Detailed background information (Status Quo)

In this part, Prime Minister mostly presents the social problems about society/ law/ policy/ system etc. which affects individuals, organizations, nations and world.

5. Justification

Justification is a bridge between the status quo and the arguments. Justification answers the question ‘why’; Why did we set the house as such nation/ organization, why is our policy the most efficient, why do we have to solve it etc.

6. Team split

Separate the roles for each speaker. Simply, telling an order to adjudicators so that s/he can catch up everything what we say.

7. Argument

Usually, arguments are built by ‘A, R, E+I’ structure. A is Assertion, R is reasoning, E is Evidence and I is an impact. Firstly, the speaker present genera thesis about the argument. And then, persuade the adjudicator to think our logic is correct by providing supporting reasons and empirical evidences. Lastly, the speaker should give an impact why such idea is better than the others.

Under the motion of ‘THBT Russia should abolish the law against promoting homosexuality.’ I had little things to define, because we are discussing the value and justifications about already-made law in Russia. Therefore, I set our house as the United Nations so that I can efficiently emphasize the role and importance of individual freedoms and rights.

Our case was simple. Love is a part of emotion, and people have liberal freedom to express their feelings. This is also the reason, why we defined our house as the UN. Through the status quo, I provided the general knowledge and backgrounds of the law in Russia, and proved the violence of human rights through presenting resolutions and human rights which UN has declared. Articles are below.

<UN declarations of human rights and freedoms>

Article 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it is independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 9

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

I claimed expressing love, which is emotion, no matter with same or different gender, is humanity’s basic freedom, and government, as a protector of their citizens, has duty to respect those freedoms. Through justifications I emphasized the fact that Russian government is trying to control their citizens’ mind and heart.

Throughout all the steps, I tried to imprint the stance which is that the Russian government has stepped over the red line, and they are making their citizens as a puppet of their wealth and power. Most importantly, the international human-rights-related officers, which is UN, has duty to protect Russian minorities regarding the violence which triggered by Russian government.

Our arguments were also focused on human rights; the UN’s duty, government’s role, and message to society. Firstly, I proved and justified the wrong action taken place by Russia through presenting our first argument, the UN’s duty. I emphasized the fact that Russian government is violating their citizens’ basic freedom, and UN has to step in to regulate the government and protect Russians from danger. Secondly, after justifying intervention of the UN, we proved that the Russian government is not fulfilling their role. We started this argument by providing the needs and relationship between the government and their citizens. Citizens fulfill their roles for government protection. Government exists for their citizens and should always remind their meaning of existence. Then, we emphasized the point that Russian government should abolish the law in order to fulfill the true meaning of their existence. Lastly, we talked about the messages, which Russian government is sending to the society. We ask a question to the Opposition about boundary of the red-line, which government should keep. All the people, as a human being, have their freedom and rights, therefore have privacy. And government has duty to protect their citizens’ privacy, which includes all the freedoms and rights. Therefore, government should keep the line, influences toward their citizens, when making a policy. However, we strongly claimed that the law is absolutely violating people’s freedom, which is freedom to express emotion, and therefore people’s freedoms are being violated by their own government. We threw a question, how far will government intervene in people’s life. Then we claimed that if government starts to regulate citizens’ emotion, people are not anymore citizens but puppets, and the government is not anymore democratic but dictatorship.

Like such, we strongly supported our value of human rights and freedoms. The Opposition’s main point was about citizens’ duty. They claimed every sort of actions, which negatively influence the society, should be regulated. Their stance was that promoting homosexuality is an action which is against their tradition, and therefore will bring negative influence to the society. They also provided the statistics and research about how Russian people have negative view point about homosexuality. But, we rebutted to opposing point, and claimed love, no matter with same gender or not, is a one of emotional feelings, and therefore people have freedom to express them, as UN declared. Then we proved expressing the feeling will not bring a negative effects to society, and freedoms to express feeing is an absolute basic freedom which should be respected.

Asian Parliamentary Debate

Dec7

One of the most important, but hard, task for students to achieve is to have creative mind and critical thinking. Mixed thinking of creative and critical mind leads teenagers to form unique ego, which makes each person more special. Furthermore, these values make everyone more precious and indispensable. These are a few of the reasons why a lot of schools and academic institutions emphasize above skills as the main ideologies,which schools need to fulfill through teaching students. Among plenty ways to develop the skills, ‘Debating’ is the most efficient way to accomplish the purpose; creative mind and critical thinking. In this essay, I will present the general knowledge about debate and its effects.

The debate what I mean in this essay is different from casual debate or anargument which occurs with friends or other people. Of course, arguing with friends orparents is also a part of debate, but the debate, which I am trying to explain, is about the competing parliamentary debate. These debates are the model of British parliament, but were transformed and fixed for Asians – Asian Parliamentary Debate.

Asian Parliamentary Debate is as same as the real congress debate. There are two different sides claiming opposing opinion of a motion. There isPrime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition, Deputy Leader of Opposition and Whip, which has each different role to fulfill. 3 people are in a group and they are called first (Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition), second (Deputy Prime Minister, Deputy Leader of Opposition) and third (Government Whip, Opposition Whip) speaker. The first speakers of each side have to define the motion with general background knowledge and argument. Also, they have to suggest problems of the current social status with justifications for what they are claiming. Second speakers should rebut to opposing argument and present one or two arguments, which first speaker has justified. Arguments should contain assertion, reasoning, evidence and impact. Lastly, third speaker should generally summary what previous speakers argued and claimed about with well-developed linkage, which areclashes. Each speaker must achieve each role with the respect and formality toward opposing team, adjudicator and the spirit of the motion.

The rule is simple. The division is divided into two groups; middle school age and high school age. They compete with same age group with equal rules. There are preliminary and real rounds.Preliminary rounds areproceeding as a form of league and the break round is proceeding as a tournament. There are 5 preliminary rounds and each round has an adjudicator who judges the round. The team who has more wins is breaking to the real round. The number of the breaking team is different in every single competition. Usually there are 3 impromptu rounds, 2 prepared rounds out of 5 preliminary rounds. Each team has 30 minutes to prepare in each impromptu round, while no preparing time is allowed in prepared rounds. Prepared rounds requires high quality of statistics with a lot of efforts, however, the background knowledge is more important on the impromptu rounds because no electronic or technological devices are allowed during the preparing time but only paper dictionary. The real round is lively broadcasted on television with audiences and 5~10 adjudicators. The motion becomes more advanced, and, as it’s a tournament format, you no longer have chance to go upper roundsonce you lost a round. So a list of matches and luck also has big influence on match results in the real rounds.

Debate is effective method for students to ponder in bigger picture. Debate motion has a lot different themes; human rights, environment, law, common knowledge and so on which are unpredictable. Also, each theme has uncountable numbers of sub motions. For example, under the theme of human right, the motion can be created about women, race, social minorities, teenagers etc. Therefore, to prepare for the competitions, debaters should do immense amount of researches and experiments. When I was preparing for the theme, law, I had to search for the aims of punishment, elements to call the act as a crime, the current Korean and the United States’ law system, current status quo and so on. Like such, through preparation, students are likely to improve depth of knowledge and quality. Moreover, concerning the nature of debate, students are able to learn how to speak well and logically.

Debate also helps students to ponder creatively. Every debate round has to attack or defend the motion. The Opposition usually attacks the motion and the Government mostly defends the motion. When attacking, Opposition side has to think about the counter policy. Counter policy is the policy that can have better effects with lower efforts. As an example, if the motion suggests banning tobacco products, Opposition has to introduce the better way to solve the social problems, instead of banning, with logical, trustable arguments and evidences. Throughout this process, students get to think about the better way to enhance the weak part of the world, society and life.

Moreover, people can also improve critical thinking. Attacking sides always brings out better policy which sounds more efficient. But, as a defending team, team members have to rebut every single point that the attackers make to drag down the motion. Defenders not only have to rebut, but also have to continuously emphasize and prove why their policy is better than others’. During this procedure, defenders must think about the weakness and paradoxes of opposing side’s new policy or arguments. Accepting others’ opinion on the critical view can form each person’s own stubborn value of thinking.

The world is seeking people who have creative mind with critical thinking because they can develop the world by solving and complementing the current status or problems. This is the primary reason why academies try hard to develop such skills for students. Due to all the effects above, I believe debating can lead students to think more deeply with complex logic.

<Website>

1. http://cafe.naver.com/evandebate/7

2. http://cafe.naver.com/debatediscuss/18

3. http://blog.naver.com/pjj2788?Redirect=Log&logNo=60189963483

4.http://academic.naver.com/view.nhn?doc_id=37121986&dir_id=0&page=0&query=Effects%20of%20debating&ndsCategoryId=10912&library=91

<Book>

1. YTN English Debate –YTN Broad casting company (Not on sale)

2. Cheong-shim Diary -9beans (Publish-늘봄, Neul-bom)

<Newspaper>

English specified high school, raising global leaders-Chung-chungToday(2000,01,01, 9^th page)

Radical Evolution -Hell scenario

Dec7

Radical Evolution, written by Joel Garreau, is about specific, possible results and effects for the human being, which can be led by rapidly developing technologies. The book ‘Radical evolution’ shows several scenarios of the results which advanced technologies may lead human life in the future. The three biggest possible scenarios, for the human life, is Heaven, Hell and Prevail scenario. Each scenario, which the author predicts in variable ways, has proof, evidence, statistics and reports to support their opinion.

Heaven scenario expresses human being can stay above technology no matter how much it becomes developed. Also, Heaven scenario claims that human life and the society can be fortified by the help and convenience from highly developed technologies. Ray Kurzweil is representing Heaven scenario and claims “In order to live in more convenient and high-quality life, development of technologies is necessary.”

On the other hand, Hell scenario describes the end of the world. Hell scenario proposes that human being will not be able to control their robots, machines and other highly developed, advanced technologies. In this scenario, Bill Joy is the one who strongly supports the idea. He believes more disasters will threaten human being as more science technologies improve. Moreover, Hell scenario shows the destruction of everything starting from human life to the environment of the Earth.

Lastly, Prevail scenario supports balance and harmony with humans and science. Prevail scenario predicts that the world will be enhanced through complementary relationship between human being and robots. The scenario claims that the world will develop when humans and intelligence science cooperate. Jaron Zepel Lanier is the person who supports Prevail scenario. He suggests, “In order to fallow and take control of rapidly developing technologies, communication and linkage with people is needed.”, that he believes if there is a risk, it’s best not to develop such technology.

The most attracting and strongest scenario which persuaded me is Hell scenario. Hell scenario was the most convincing idea, not only because it approached my consciousness with familiarity but also caught my compathy when I concerned the social status quo.

The story caught my attention by showing similar and well-known written scenes. Machine invasion, robot attacks are very familiar situations which we can see through science fiction movies. Most of the animations and story for kids are also science fiction. The possible ‘fiction’ about robots and machine invasions are taking a part of our brain from a very young age. The most popular movie in Hollywood, Transformer, is also about alien-robots fighting with humans and human-friendly robots to take control of the Earth. Like such, the consciousness and interest about science fiction led me to feel familiarity during reading Chapter 5, which made Hell scenario the most interesting.

Furthermore, the story formed compathy with readers by leading them to compare the story with the real society. Nowadays, as technologies develop, human being feels as if they are in control of the current technologies. Most, if not all, of the people has misconception toward their situation. As we all know, we all use technologies; SNS such as Kakao Talk, Facebook, Nate-on, machines like computers, automatic cleaning machines etc. Also, by surfing and using Internet, we feel more comfortable when we obtain new information. However, this situation and conception of people itself, who is feeling comfortable using technologies, shows that we are already being ruled by technologies. We ‘think’ we are ‘using’ those technologies but the reality is different; technologies made us to use them. Here is a simple example. Most Cheong-shim students use Facebook to contact each other and obtain information from others. Also, we use smart phones to solve our daily life-difficulties in easier way, such as phone banking, SNS, phone call, message or plenty activities using phone applications. Then here is a question, what if all of these materials are gone in sudden moment? We will definitely fall into chaos. If there are no phones, how can we contact someone? If there is no Internet, how can we solve our curiosity? It seems as if we have options to choose and we choose to use such technology, like Internet, autonomically, but in fact, we do not have options to choose. For us, right now, nothing can replace our smart phones, iPad, Internet, fridges, computers and so on. The current situation made human to rely on technologies. We are already ruled by science.

Technologies have two different faces. One smiling face provides us convenience and comfortableness but at the same time, the scary face approaches us to invade our world. More and more we feel ease, more the face approaches. We always have to find some special thing that only humans can do in order not to be replaced by machines. If we do not find our own specialties, even though now we can use science for our own wealth, in the short future, machines and robots maybe valued superior than humans. Furthermore, during war period, machines and science technologies are often valued more precious than humans. Einstein’s nuclear energy was used to kill Japanese army, also missiles, guns, bomb, which all human invented, now threaten human being’s safety. It is very relieving that humans are smarter than machines, but when robots become really smarter, no one can guarantee our safety. Radical Evolution criticizes and warns all human beings to aware what we are doing and using right now, in order not to make mistake, such as Einstein’s nuclear bomb, once again.

However, one mistake that the author made while writing the scenario is ‘intelligence’. Joel Garreau underestimated human beings. Current scientists and analysts claims that human being living on Earth is the most evolved and smart creature in entire universe. Even though it is just hypothesis, since we do not know if we are alone in the universe, the assumption is highly theoretical and convincing because we could not find other creatures, yet. Humans are still evolving and no one knows the limits of human brain and their ability. Scientists proved that humans only use 10~20% of our brain during the entire life. Until humans evolves to use entire brain during life spam, human will be the smartest creature in the universe, which means human will likely to take control of most of the things. The reason why I used the word ‘most’ is because even if human being is superior, in point of our view on intelligence, we are just part of nature. Humans can take control of everything that they invented, but nature. As long as machines and robots are the inventions of human and as long as they cannot earn intelligence by themselves, human will take control. The Hell scenario, which the author claimed, will not become reality in the future that we know. It will take more than billions and trillions of years to make Hell scenario comes true. Hell scenario is just a scenario, assumption, which has low possibility to become reality.

Aware of the risk does not bring negative influence. It is good to make plan B in case when plan A fails. No one knows about the future, no one can predict, choose or change the faith. Also, as because we are a tiny part of the entire universe, which is so large that humans still cannot measure its length, a lot of variables exists. Variables, which humans cannot predict and regulate, may bring us dangers, and robot attacks or the results of high reliance of technologies that the book suggested may happen in our children’s age. Starting from our caution, we must harmoniously develop environment and science, which we should value equally. Furthermore, humans should always be ready when they are using advanced technology. Technology should not be developed faster than humans’ consciousness.

<Sources>

http://www.munhwa.com/news/view.html?no=2007110201032730065002

http://hiraice2011s.blogspot.kr/2011/10/radical-evolution-chapter-5-hell.html

http://anakupto.blogspot.kr/2011/04/forbidden-gates-how-grin-technologies.html