賛否を述べてください：投票を義務化すべきだ

— Posted inSpeech Scripts — 2 min read

Agree or disagree: Voting should be mandatory.

Depending on what we are, the answers may well vary, and they all make sense. It’s important for any country to try to find the optimal policy, but in my view, mandatory voting has disadvantages that cannot be overlooked. Now let me explain the details.     

First, some experts argue that forcing people to vote against their will goes against democracy. It is because “freedom of expression” includes the right to opt out of voting. So, even if some people are reluctant to vote, it is also a way of expressing their opinion. That is why many countries with compulsory voting don’t have penalties.     

Next, I understand some may argue that compulsory voting can encourage people to participate in politics, but almost no study exists to support this argument. In fact, many people lack enough information to make a political decision. In such cases, compulsory voting leads to poor decision-making.           

In this way, compulsory voting has its disadvantages, which can go against the public interest. So, we need to consider them carefully to lay down the optimal system. Thank you for your attention. [182 Words Type-B]

国民は政治代表者を直接選挙すべきか

— Posted inSpeech Scripts — 1 min read

Should the public diréctly choose all political leaders?

Depending on how we define “all political leaders,” the answers may well vary, and they all make sense. Now I would like to share my view on “the direct election presidency.” In my view, the system has disadvantages that cannot be overlooked. Now let me explain the details.     

First, this system can empower demagogues, which has negative impact on democratic governance. They present fantastic goals and appeal to people at first. But once in power, they tend to prioritize their popularity over enhancing the standard of living for the people. This is unacceptable outcome in our world today.     

Next, I understand some may argue that countries sometimes need a strong leadership, especially developing countries where economic growth is the top priority. However, in these situations, the presidential systems easily transform into a dictatorship, as we have seen in some sub-Saharan countries such as Central Africa and Rwanda.            I

n this way, the presidential system has its disadvantages, which can go against the public interest of the country. So, we need to consider them carefully to maintain healthy democracy. Thank you for your attention. [182 Words Type-B]

日本の憲法は21世紀の要請を満たしているのか

— Posted inSpeech Scripts — 1 min read

Does Japan’s constitution meet the needs of the 21st century? 

Depending on what we are, the answers may well vary, and they all make sense, but in my view, Japan’s constitution is progressive enough to meet the need of the 21st century. Now let me explain the details.     

Japan’s Constitution has some notable advantages: first, it has some futuristic views, particularly concerning “pacifism,” and “internationalism.” These are important principles in our world today. On this point, the UN Sustainable Development Goals mention both of them, indicating the progressiveness of the constitution.     

Next, it also includes new human rights such as “environmental rights.” For example, climate change has become a major concern across the world. The constitution also recognizes the significance of protecting the environment for future generations and guarantees “the right to lead a healthy and cultural life.” This shows that the constitution is not only applicable to the 21st century, but also to any time, with any social and environmental issues.           

Therefore, I conclude that the constitution can be a useful guideline for Japan in this century, and every policy must fully reflect its spirit. Thank you for your attention. [181 Words Type-L]

日本は性平等達成のためさらに努力すべきか

— Posted inSpeech Scripts — 1 min read

Should Japan make more efforts to achieve gender équity?

Depending on what we are, the answers may well vary, and they all make sense, but in my view, the government’s efforts for gender equity is insufficient, so it should act more to improve the current situation. Now let me explain the details.     

First, Japan has the lowest gender gap rating among developed nations, because of fewer female politicians and corporate executives. Plus, many Japanese women face discrimination in their salaries, promotions, and even layoffs. The international community has criticized this, so Japan must improve this embarrassing situation promptly.     

Next, achieving gender équity is crucial to Japan’s economic growth and competitiveness. Because without sufficient skilled workforce, Japan’s economy could stagnate, resulting in lower tax revenues, and possible collapse social systems in turn. So, it is important to have intelligent and skilled workers, corporate leaders, and lawmakers in our society.           

On this point, the UN Sustainable Development Goals have listed ‘achieving gender equity’ as one of their key challenges. So, the government and companies must come together to achieve a healthy and vibrant society for everyone. Thank you for your attention. [180 words Type-G]

政教は分離されるべきか

— Posted inSpeech Scripts — 2 min read

Should religion be kept out of politics?

Depending on historical backgrounds of countries, the answers may well vary, and they all make sense. It’s important for any country to try to find the optimal policy, but in my view, religion should be kept out of politics. Now let me explain the details.    

First, democratic countries today follow the principle of “Rule of Law”, so they must only follow the law and nothing else. If a government starts to favor a particular religion, its administration becomes unclear, and religious beliefs will override parliament resolutions. This may also violate the principle of “religious freedom” in turn, which would threaten the social stability.     

Next, in modern countries, it is essential to establish, implement, and evaluate each policy based on scientific evidence. On the contrary, religions rely on faith and belief. This leads to ineffective policy-making, so often fail to meet the public interest.           

In conclusion, we must see “separation of church and state” as an important principle that supports a sound democracy in present day. To maintain this, we should not undermine this by looking for any loophole. Thank you for your attention. [183 Words Type-F2]

有名人は政治に関与すべきか

— Posted inSpeech Scripts — 1 min read

Should celebrities be involved in politics?

This is an interesting topic; depending on what we are, the answers may well vary, and they all make sense, but in my view, celebrities should decide for themselves whether to participate in politics. Now let me explain the details.     

First, when celebrities get involved in politics, it can stimulate public interest in voting and boost “voter turnout” in turn, which is benefícial for a healthy democracy. But as it is, it’s difficult to define who is a “celebrity” here. Even if you could, you cannot easily argue someone’s suffrage only because he or she is a celebrity.     

Next, I understand some may argue that the popularity of celebrities has too much influence on politics, but celebrity charisma can sometimes bring people together in a good way. Take Volodymyr Zelenski as an example, his popularity has helped him bring citizens together, and protect the nation.           

In conclusion, we must see “participation in politics” as an important principle that supports a healthy democracy in present day. To maintain this, we should respect will of individuals, including celebrities. Thank you for your attention. [181 Words Type-F2]

言論の自由への規制は正当化されうるか

— Posted inSpeech Scripts — 1 min read

Can restrictions on freedom of speech ever be justified? 

Depending on the situation of democracy and other national circumstances of the countries, the answers may well vary, and they all make sense, but in my view, restrictions on freedom of speech should only be allowed under limited conditions. Now let me explain the details.     

First, restrictions on free speech may sometimes be necessary to safeguard citizens and maintain a healthy democracy. For example, hate speech should not be permitted in the name of free speech. As a result, reasonable limitations can be useful in guaranteeing people’s safety and welfare. Violent and offensive speeches that oppose public interest should be stopped.     

At the same time, restrictions on freedom of speech must be minimal and overseen by neutral private bodies instead of the government, in order to prevent censorship, which is what the Constitution prohibits. The government should respect people’s right to express themselves without censorship.           

In conclusion, we must see “freedom of speech” as an important principle that supports a sound democracy in present day. To maintain this, we should not undermine this by looking for loophole. Thank you for your attention. [182 Words Type-F2]

インターネットは厳格に規制されるべきか

— Posted inSpeech Scripts — 1 min read

Should the Internet be tightly regulated? 

Depending on how we are interested in the topic, the answers may well vary, and they all make sense. It’s important for any country to try to find the optimal policy, but in my view, regulating the Internet should not be easily argued. Now let me explain the details.     

First, regulating the Internet can infringe on freedom of speech. We know that the Internet is a valuable ínfrastructure for communication, sharing information, and massive computing. On top of that, it supports “freedom of speech,” our basic human rights. So, excessive regulation on the Internet is not acceptable in our world today.     

Next, I understand some may argue that the regulation could prevent cybercrime, but maintaining order online doesn’t need cóntent regulations, rather strong security measures. For example, we can use biometric authentication and strong codes to protect information and deter cyberattacks.           

In conclusion, we must see “secrecy of communication” and “freedom of speech” as important principles that support a sound democracy in present day. To support them, we should not undermine them by looking for any loophole. Thank you for your attention. [182 Words Type-F2]

賛否を述べてください: ニュースメディアは政府規制を受けるべきだ

— Posted inSpeech Scripts — 2 min read

Agree or disagree: The news media should be regulated by the government. 

This is an important yet challenging topic; depending on what we are, the answers may well vary, and they all make sense, but in my view, the media regulation should not be easily argued. Now let me explain the details.     

First, regulating the media infringes on freedom of speech. We know that the media is necessary for breaking news and sharing information. On top of that, it supports our freedom of thought and freedom of expression. So, intervention on the media harms healthy democracy, which is not acceptable in our world today.     

Next, I understand some may argue that regulating the press can stop harmful speech, such as hate speech. While this also has a point, it should not be monitored by the government, but by neutral private bodies, to guarantee press freedom. The government should respect the right of journalists to report without censorship.           

In conclusion, we must see “freedom of press” as an important principle that supports a sound democracy in present day. To maintain this, we should not undermine this by looking for any loophole. Thank you for your attention. [183 Words Type-F2]

企業が従業員のSNS使用を監視することは許されるか

— Posted inSpeech Scripts — 1 min read

Is it ever acceptable for companies to monitor employees’ social media use? 

Depending on the legal situation and other national circumstances of the countries, the answers may well vary, and they all make sense, but in my view, companies should be permitted to monitor all communications over company-owned devices, while should not censor any personal device. Now let me explain the details.     

First, by monitoring social media, companies can protect their reputation, intellectual property, and other important assets. For example, some workers may misuse social media to harm corporate reputation, or they may reveal confidential data or private information to outsiders. So, it’s natural for companies to regulate such activities.     

Next, I understand some may argue that such monitoring infringes on human rights, but it is not a censorship. In addition, when workers communicate during work hours, it is a corporate activity, not invading the rights of others.

Therefore, monitoring by the company does not violate “communication privacy.” However, finding a balance between corporate activities and privacy is sometimes an important yet challenging matter. So, we must carefully consider the practices to find out the optimal approach. Thank you for your attention. [180 F1]

メディアは公人の私生活を過度に侵しているか

— Posted inSpeech Scripts — 1 min read

Do the media invade the lives of public figures too much?

Depending on what we are, the answers may well vary, and they all make sense, but in my view, the media do not excessively invade the lives of public figures so far. Now let me explain the details.    

First, harming the privacy of public figures does not benefit the media. If they infringe on an individual’s rights excessively, it may cause public backlash, and hinder their reporting in the future. That’s why the media follows strict guidelines for reporting on private matters. Plus, the media also understand that privacy is a basic human right, as well as freedom of the press is essential to support democracy.     

Next, I understand some may argue that the paparazzi often invade people’s privacy, because illegally collected materials, such as photos and recordings, often sell for high prices. However, most media never purchase such materials. Such manners don’t necessarily reflect the media’s position.           

Having said that, finding a balance between privacy and public interest is an important yet challenging matter. So, we must carefully examine these practices to find out an optimal approach. Thank you for your attention. [183 Words Type-F1]

プライバシー喪失は現代社会において不可避か

— Posted inSpeech Scripts — 2 min read

Is a loss of privacy inevitable in modern societies?

Depending on what we are, the answers may well vary, and they all make sense, but in my view, a loss of privacy is inevitable in modern societies to a certain extent. Now let me explain the details.     

First, as technology advances, we are increasingly connected online. As a result, businesses, law enforcement agencies, and governments can easily access our personal information online without our explicit consent. In addition, many tech giants such as Google and Microsoft openly track our online behavior and preferences to optimize their advertising. Then, I would have to say it is almost inevitable for us to lose our privacy.     

Next, recent COVID-19 has led to enhanced monitoring for “public health” reasons. For example, governments across the world have installed surveillance cameras everywhere and developed several apps to track people’s movements. While these measures may be useful to contain the pandemic, they can also invade our privacy rights.           

Having said that, balancing public interest with human rights is an important yet challenging matter. So, we must carefully examine these practices to find out an optimal approach. Thank you for your attention. [185 Words Type-F1]

賛否を述べてください：政府は全国民にベーシックインカムを支給すべきだ

— Posted inSpeech Scripts — 1 min read

Agree or disagree: The government should provide a basic income to all citizens.

Depending on historical background and other circumstances of the countries, the answers may well vary, and they all make sense, but in my view, basic income has its pros and cons. Now let me explain the details.     

One advantage of basic income is that it alleviates social inéquity. In such cases, it can eliminate extreme poverty, prevent illness and homelessness, and reduce welfare budgets in turn. Next, it helps job changes, because short-term unemployment does not affect people’s standard of living.     

On the other hand, basic income also has its disadvantages: first, it needs huge budget. Studies have shown that introducing a basic income system in Japan would need nearly 100 trillion yen. Next, some argue that a basic income weaken the working morale, while some studies oppose this.           

Therefore, I conclude that basic income can be a feasible option. But, what I have said has only outlined the issues: in fact, several other political and economic factors may have a complex impact. So, each country must carefully consider the situation to lay down the optimal policy. Thank you for your attention. [182 I]

日本の労働市場は今世紀の間健全を保てるか

— Posted inSpeech Scripts — 2 min read

Can Japan’s labor market stay healthy in the 21st century? 

Depending on how we define a “healthy job market,” the answers may well vary, and they all make sense, but in my view, it is not likely that Japan’s labor market will stay healthy in the future. Now let me explain the details.     

First, Japan is experiencing a shortage of workers because of its aging population and low birthrate. Without feasible solutions, this problem could lead to economic decline and potential collapse in many social systems. Plus, as the population ages, more people need medical care and life support, which will tighten the job market in the future.     

Next, I understand some may argue that population decline will also alleviate the labor shortage, but even in that situation, Japan’s economy still needs skilled workers supporting its high productivity, such as by enhanced robotics. So, it may be too optimistic to lap up this argument easily, at least at this time.     

Therefore, as a fundamental solution to this issue has still yet to be found, I am pessimistic about the future of the job market in Japan. Thank you for your attention. [181 Words Type-A,O]

pose: 問題を持ち出す