A very good morning to the honourable adjudicators, esteemed timekeeper, my worthy yet misguided opponents and members of the floor. I am Yap Ren Hui, the 1st speaker of the opposition team, and I stand here today with my team to oppose the motion that the house has proposed today, which is ‘Children should provide for their aging parents’. In our opinion, we think that children don’t really need to provide for their aging parents. Before starting to debate this topic, allow me to introduce my team mates and the points they will be speaking about. Over here is our 2nd speaker, Miss. Nazahtul Farahin. She will be talking about the point ‘the privacy that the children need’ and the ‘preference of the parents themselves’. I as the first speaker will be just talking about one point, which is ‘the commitments that the children already have’. Our 3rd speaker, Mr. Mtran s/o Gunasekaran however, won’t be giving any new points as he’ll rebut all the points that are given by your team. Now, allow me to define today’s motion. According to the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, the word ‘children’ means a son or daughter of any age. Provide means to make something available by giving, lending or supplying it. Aging means a process of growing old and parents carries the meaning a father or mother. All these words define the motion that we’re against today. Now that I have defined the whole motion, I’d like to say that we, the opposition are strongly against today’s motion because we think it’s unnecessary for children to provide for their parents.
Members of the floor,
It is very common for people to think that children are fully responsible for their parents when they start to age. But I bet most of the people who say this, haven’t really experienced the time when they have an aging parents or maybe they might just be lying because one can’t simply take full care of their parents by providing everything to them whilst having their own life as a full-time employee and