2023-03-04_Review

I am also thankful for the debate as well as Min who presided over it.

I’d like to leave three comments after I was impressed with the thoughts from all of you.

 

1. The debate gave me new insights into how our members in Pros and Cons considered the human being's nature. DECA has broadened my horizons.

 

2. It has been a long time since I attended the off-line study. Perhaps my speech was clumsy and not that logical enough to convey what I wanted to say. Furthermore, kind of my tone & pitch might've exuded a little "powerful"- [Air quotes, maybe I guess it sounds aggressive (?)"].

However, that was not my intention. I was born in Daegu so it was due to Daegu dialect.

Actually, I would say I am not powerful(?).

By the way, if any people in the Cons team felt uncomfortable, I am awfully sorry for that.

 

3. There is my own key takeaway from the debate. If people are intrinsically non-evil let alone being good, why isn’t there well-established law without revision or addition?

Considering the law that has been amended dozens of times, it is the counter-evidence that people may be evil. If people are well-educated by the social environment, the law -especially related to crimes- doesn't need to be amended.

However, as you might know, every time law has been done so.

Hence, when it comes to the flawless law without amendment or adding, why can't we make "what we wanna make(=the flawless law)" the way we wanna make it? That's because people could be inherently evil.

Though it sounds repetitive, if people are good, the law wouldn't need to be revised. Once people are well-trained as good guys, they are supposed to observe the law without amendment.

But it's not and that's all there is to it.