Child Abuse Scandal Debate

Motion:

THBT the government should, in the first place, be in charge of the prevention of child abuse.

Bullet points:

1.     What is the spirit of this motion?

2.     Personalization on a community level

3.     One-size-fits-all policy considering efficacy!?

4.     Lack of transparency

5.     Mechanise NGOs and correlate it with utilitarianism

6.     Why we win this debate?

 

1.    What is the spirit of this motion?

First of all, let me elaborate upon the spirit of this motion. As the prevention of child abuse is per se a multifaceted issue, this phenomenon should definitely be dealt with on a community or a family level in the first place.

2.    Personalization on a community level:

Were we to take closer look at local communities, what we are experiencing is that each segment of our society needs to grapple with specific risks based on their socio-economic circumstances regarding child protection. Needless to say, meticulous analysis is necessitated to attain overall betterment in such an emotive issue as child abuse. While careful contemplation is a less viable option in the case of government, NGOs are far more suitable. Let me tell you why.

Were NGOs given the opportunity for early intervention, it would far more likely to lead to instantaneous and culturally sensitive responses considering child abuse on a larger scale. NGOs are the ones that are capable of finding individual solutions that prove to be a more effective preventative measure case by case. As personalization is a sine qua non for taking the children in danger under our wings, the government is out of contention since the metric of this debate is to help as many children as possible.

3.    One-size-fits-all policy considering efficacy!?

Also, there is a high likelihood that the government might introduce a policy that are applicable to each stakeholder in this question. In this case governmental interventions don't respect individual family dynamics that is a sheer infringement upon the disenfranchised. For this reason, a generalized policy would further perpetuate violence while underaged minors are at stake in less well-off areas. Therefore, NGOs are a practical measure since, by and large, these societal segments are the most likely to have a predisposition to child abuse.

4.    Lack of transparency:

Another major factor to take into account is that the government is an enormously huge system that is far more prone to make erroneous decisions by nature. This is ascribable to its lack of transparency.

5.    Mechanise NGOs and correlate it with utilitarianism:

Conversely, transparency is a truism in the case of NGOs. By definition, NGO refers an organization that is generally formed independent from the government and is a non-profit entity to provide humanitarian support. As result of that it is perfectly clear that their main financial resource comes from subsidies that they need to apply for. These funds are finite sums of money that creates competition on the market.

It goes without saying that it is in the interest of NGO entities to gain as much resource as they can to enhance the way they function on the market so that customers will be even more satisfied. Moreover, they would, for sure, diversify their services for them that would definitely result in more prosperity and less child abuse in the long run. This is another reason how the under-represented marginalized communities throughout the country could get a helping hand from a wider range of opportunities by NGOs.

6.    Why we win this debate?

With all these in mind, this would, by all means, result in less child abuse. The ultimate interest of everybody is to foster a more liveable society for the future generation that is more feasible in the opposition side of the house. Therefore, we beg to oppose.