I am the Leader of Opposition of this house, and I will establish to you why (motion) is not justifiable and not valid. (THP a world where women from privileged backgrounds are not entitled any benefits arising from affirmative action groups ) Every women, regardless of their status and background should be able to enjoy the benefits from affirmative actions. Gender inequality is not only built in the head but in the world. Rebuttals : The prime minister tried to tell you that: Their mechanism - First let me characterize things before I proceed to my constructives because the Pm failed to do so. What are this women in privilege background? Women who have influence and empowered such as but not limited to : Actresses like angel Locsin and emma watson, politicians like leni robredo, risa Hontiveros. People like this, even if we can call them privileged in the Their world we’re gonna remove any privilege for this empowered, policies by organization and state in supporting bringing equality to women thru legislations etc. This is so problematic on their side because they are becoming to inclusive to women. They say women have always tried to grapple to gain equal opportunity in society in participation i.. leadership roles. That is the problem in status quo, why awe are debating in the first place, in this way panel that the gov want, discrimination cannot be reduced because even privileged women are prone and can be a target of discrimination, I will further strengthen this later. Women do not deserve- there are women discriminated because they don’t have the same privilege as themWomen before we’re not allowed to gain property and vote, and that Panel, our burden is to prove to you why is it not justifiable to remove the benefits from women in the privileged background. This is what the motions call us for, to argue why it is not fair to remove the benefits i.e discrimination to voice at their work and ability to fully participate. Because the problem in the status quo, of women discrimination, are not limited to those underprivelaged, to be honest even if they claim this, 91% of women, for example the Philippines are active in the labor force. Meaning there is also a improvement from this affirmative action programs. And one of the most vulnerable here are also women from privilege sectors. Leni robredo- Vp has been always a victim of the fragile masculinity and patriarchy of society. She is attacked by misinformation, called out being luting and lugaw. We do think that even women like her who is influential can still be a target of sense that they are in upper class, and influential they still experience discrimination from the fragile masculinity. They experience reg-tagging. discrimination. She was removed and not given an opportunity in the cabinet of the president who embraces the concept of patriarchy and women are weak. Then what should debate be about? Firstly, it should be on the role of every women regardless of their status in benefitting from affirmative action programs . Women from history has always been deemed the weaker gender, even the 21st century some people still have this mindset even if feminist movements are now also present. Some women are now empowered for example, the lat Miriam Defensor Santiago the so called Iron lady of asia who served in the three main branches of the government, Leni robredo who is the current VP of the country. Even if they are influential, they can still be subjected to death threats i.e., we can see the unfairness already when recently BBM was threatened to be killed and ambushed in a platfrom tiktok and NBI and law authorities took action very fast, but when leni robredo experiences the same? What happens? They remain quiet. Secondly what these affirmative action programs? And why it is crucial for every women to benefit from it. Representation (Why is it crucial to) Affirmative programs are like, women empowerment movement, policies that uphold women rights like magna carta, which are all crucial for every individual women, Why does this matter on this debate? It is because in this way we can mitigate the harm and uphold feminism and women empowerment in general without excluding such people in the privilege sector. Let us bite the bullet, even if they say that underprivilege women needs more benefit from this program, we think so in this side of the house, that protecting such underprivelage and privilege are crucial. Even if the deputy and government whip try to tell you that the most vulnerable people here at those underprivelage, they are still protected on our side, the minorities we are protecting are also more vulnrerable why? Women that are influential like celebrities i.e. angel Locsin, women in politics that are discriminated, Leila delima, leni robredo, they are vulnerable because people do attack them more as they are fighting the stigma of unfairness in society, empowering women and whatnot. Participation (why is it important for the actors of this debate to take part in) At least on our side, we uphold the best interest of the main actors in this debate, those that are discriminated from their workplace and not able to exercise their rights and voice in there. Aside from protecting the underprivileged women, which is also inherently present on our side. Opportunities in being protected by policies from affirmative action programs i.e magna carta must always be present for every women and not only the underprivelaged. Urgency (why is it needed) To wrap it all as one, I have told you a more nuanced characterization of what () are, secondly, I provided you arguments that are engage to their best case as well and then lastly, I just provided you a principal argument that will remain standout at the very end of this debate. Now even if the skin products and services that alter skin say that this will be problem in upholding (), we say panel that this is untrue because At least on our side we have safety net of accepting skin altering products and services to people in our society. Again, discrimination is not only in the head of individuals but also in the world . We need to accept the fact that these people (people with dark skin , people with mole sin faces, lgbtq people who take hormones to change their skin texture ) are able to be accepted in our society. At the end of the day: equality matters the most in this debate. Fair representation matters, and underprivelaged women are also included on our side compared to them and we are better at attaininga world where we prefer affirmative action programs not only exclusive for the underpirvelage but for every women in the society.
