The Major Argument Raised by Sen.

Francisco Rodrigo
against the passage of the Rizal Bill

The Noli-Fili or better known as the Rizal Bill was famous as one of the most controversial bills passed in
the Philippines.

Under normal circumstances, when new laws are proposed, it prompts a debate between the upper
house and the lower house of the Senate and the House of Representatives before it could be officially
approved as a law. But, in the case of the Rizal Bill, things became anomalous, it was due to the fact that
the church was getting involved with the debate on the proposal of such bill. Where in fact, the church
should be separated from the state, as it was clearly stated in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines,
Article II, Section 6, which is still the core and backbone of our country as of today.  

The bill was brought up by Senator Recto, the purpose of the bill was to mandate all educational
institutions in the Philippines to offer courses about Jose Rizal. Thus, the study about Rizal's two most
famous novels, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, which were both given as subject courses in high
school. However, there were three senators who opposed such bill. One of them was Senator Francisco
Soc Rodrigo, Senator Rodrigo was a devout Catholic and had close ties with the CBCP or the Catholic
church. Which explains to why he was opposed to such bill to be approved.  

The major argument raised by Senator Rodrigo was, the books of Rizal, specifically, Noli Me Tangere and
El Filibusterismo, were written to directly attack and ridicule the Catholic church. He states, that it
violates the Canon Law of 1933, he also argues that the books are clearly anti-Catholic.

For more information about the Rizal bill and other related topics, please check out the links below:

brainly.ph/question/1083628

brainly.ph/question/1774629

brainly.ph/question/1300798

Read more on Brainly.ph - https://brainly.ph/question/1773102#readmore

Debate continuation

Taking up points from each opponent

HOW TO DEBATE
 
What is Debating?
A debate is a structured argument.  Two sides speak alternately for and against a particular
contention usually based on a topical issue.  Unlike the arguments you might have with your
family or friends however, each person is allocated a time they are allowed to speak for and
any interjections are carefully controlled.  The subject of the dispute is often prearranged so
you may find yourself having to support opinions with which you do not normally agree. 
You also have to argue as part of a team, being careful not to contradict what others on
your side have said.

Why debate?
It is an excellent way of improving speaking skills and is particularly helpful in providing
experience in developing a convincing argument. Those of you who are forced to argue
against your natural point of view realize that arguments, like coins, always have at least
two sides.

The Basic Debating Skills

Style

Style is the manner in which you communicate your arguments.  This is the most basic part
of debating to master.  Content and strategy are worth little unless you deliver your
material in a confident and persuasive way.

Speed

It is vital to talk at a pace which is fast enough to sound intelligent and allow you time to
say what you want, but slow enough to be easily understood. 

Tone

Varying tone is what makes you sound interesting.  Listening to one tone for an entire
presentation is boring.

Volume

Speaking quite loudly is sometimes a necessity, but it is by no means necessary to shout

through every debate regardless of context.  There is absolutely no need speak any more
loudly than the volume at which everyone in the room can comfortably hear you.  Shouting
does not win debates.  Speaking too quietly is clearly disastrous since no one will be able to
hear you.

Clarity

The ability to concisely and clearly express complex issues is what debating is all about. 
The main reason people begin to sound unclear is usually because they lose the “stream of
thought” which is keeping them going. It is also important to keep it simple. While long
words may make you sound clever, they may also make you incomprehensible. 
Use of notes and eye contact

Notes are essential, but they must be brief and well organized to be effective.  There is
absolutely no point in trying to speak without notes. Of course, notes should never become
obtrusive and damage your contact with the audience, nor should they ever be read from
verbatim.  Most people sketch out the main headings of their speech, with brief notes under
each. 

When writing notes for rebuttal during the debate, it is usually better to use a separate
sheet of paper so you can take down the details of what the other speakers have said and
then transfer a rough outline onto the notes you will actually be using. 

Eye contact with the audience is very important, but keep shifting your gaze. No one likes to
be stared at.  

Content
Content is what you actually say in the debate. The arguments used to develop your own
side’s case and rebut the opposite side’s. The information on content provided below is a
general overview of what will be expected when you debate. The final logistics of how
long you will be debating, how many people will be in your group, and how the
debate will unfold (ie: which team speaks first etc.), will all be decided by your
tutorial leader.

Case (argument)- the whole

Introduction - The case your group is making must be outlined in the introduction.  This
involves stating your main arguments and explaining the general thrust of your case.  This
must be done briefly since the most important thing is to get on and actually argue it. It is
also a good idea to indicate the aspects of the subject to be discussed by each of the team
members.

Conclusion - At the end, once everyone has spoken, it is useful to briefly summarize what
your group has said and why. 

Case (argument)- the parts

Having outlined the whole of your argument, you must then begin to build a case (the
parts).  The best way to do this is to divide your case into between two and four arguments
(or divide your case based on the number of people in your group).  You must justify your
arguments with basic logic, worked examples, statistics, and quotes.  Debating is all about
the strategy of “proof”. Proof, or evidence, supporting your assertion is what makes it an
argument. There are a number of ways of dividing up cases according to groups of
arguments (eg political/economic/social or moral/practical or international/regional etc.) or
just according to individual arguments if you can’t group any together.  Under each of these
basic headings you should then explain the reasoning behind the argument and justify it
using the methods outlined above.  It is usually best to put the most important arguments
first.  Here is an example of a case outline:
   “The media exert more influence over what people think than the government does.  This
is true for three reasons.  Firstly, most people base their votes on what they see and hear
in the media. Secondly, the media can set the political agenda between elections by
deciding what issues to report and in how much detail.  Thirdly, the media have
successfully demonized politicians over the last ten years so that now people are more likely
to believe journalists than politicians.”  

All of the arguments in this case outline are debatable (almost immediately you can see the
counter-arguments), but they give the case a wide range which cover all kinds of issues. 
The trick is not to come up with a watertight case, but a well-argued one.  Think: “Can I
argue that?”

Rebuttal – the parts

Arguments can be factually, morally or logically flawed. They may be misinterpretations or

they may also be unimportant or irrelevant.  A team may also contradict one another or fail
to complete the tasks they set themselves.  These are the basics of rebuttal and almost
every argument can be found wanting in at least one of these respects.  Here are a few
examples:

1. “Compulsory euthanasia at age 70 would save the country money in pensions and
healthcare.”  This is true, but is morally flawed.

2. “Banning cigarette product placement in films will cause more young people to smoke
because it will make smoking more mysterious and taboo.”  This is logically flawed, the ban
would be more likely to stop the steady stream of images which make smoking seem
attractive and glamorous and actually reduce the number of young people smoking.

3. “My partner will then look at the economic issues...”  “Blah..blah..blah...(5 minutes later
and still no mention of the economic issues)”  This is a clear failure to explain a major part
of the case and attention should be drawn to it.  Even better is when a speaker starts with,
“to win this debate there are three things I must do…”.  If the speaker fails to do any of
those things you can then hang her or him by the noose by repeating their exact words – by
his or her own admission he or she cannot have won the debate.

Rebuttal – the whole:

It is very important to have a good perspective of the debate and to identify what the key
arguments are.  It isn’t enough to rebut a few random arguments here and there.  Of
course the techniques used above are invaluable but they must be used appropriately. 
There are a number of things you should do to systematically break down a team’s case: 

1.  Ask yourself how the other side have approached the case. Is their methodology flawed?

2.  Consider what tasks the other side set themselves (if any) and whether they have in fact
addressed these. 

3.  Consider what the general emphasis of the case is and what assumptions it makes. Try
to refute these. 
4.  Take the main arguments and do the same thing.  It is not worth repeating a point of
rebuttal that has been used by someone else already, but you can refer to it to show that
the argument has not stood up.  It is not necessary to correct every example used.  You
won’t have time and your aim is to show the other side’s case to be flawed in the key
areas. 

Sources

The information included in the document “How to Debate” was adapted from:

Kidd, A. (2002). The oxford union rough guide to debating. The English Speaking
Union. Retrieved August 26, 2002 from the World Wide
Web:http://www.britishdebate.com/resources/hb_oxfordguide.htm