First Motion:

Proposition:
Religion is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that has shaped
cultures, societies, and individual lives throughout history. It encompasses a
wide variety of beliefs, practices, rituals, and ethical systems that connect
individuals and communities to the divine, the sacred, or the transcendent.
Religion has guided millions of people around the world, people of both
genders. Feminism, which is a social, political, and cultural movement that
advocates for the rights, equality, and empowerment of all genders,
particularly focusing on addressing and rectifying the inequalities and
discrimination that women have historically face, could also be said to be as
influential as religion, with its major movements around the world. So, if they
are both that influential why should one interfere with the other? I am here
to present an argument saying that feminists, who aren’t of part of the
religion, should refrain from critiquing religious practices with different rules
based on gender. The rules set in a religion based on gender are either for
the preservation of the religion's practices or for the safety of the people part
of the religion. An example is the wearing of a veil for women. This practice
has been put in place to maintain a constant modest atmosphere around
women and protect them from abuse as it is said in the Surah Al-Ahzab
(33:59): "O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of
the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments.
That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused...". A
feminist would argue and say that a woman has the right to choose whether
she wants to wear a veil or not and that the woman is in control of what she
wears and does to her body, completely disregarding the fact that these
practices have been put in place not only to follow the laws of the Islamic
religion but also to protect the women of said religion. Another example is
the waiting period after the death or divorce of a husband. This period
known as Iddah, has been put in place once again in favor of the women.
This waiting was put in place to protect women from scorn among the
society because she may be viewed as an insensitive and heartless woman.
But this isn’t the only reason why this rule was placed. It was also placed to
make sure that a woman wasn’t impregnated by her now deceased husband,
and if so, to ensure that the lineage of said child is clearly defined, which is
crucial in Islamic law for issues related to inheritance, guardianship, and
family ties. By confirming the pregnancy during iddah, the rights of the
unborn child are protected, ensuring they are recognized as the legitimate
heir of the deceased or divorced father. Once again, a feminist will argue
that a woman has the right to every action concerning her being. They might
argue that a mandated waiting period can be seen as infringing on a
woman's agency, especially if she is compelled to adhere to it against her
will. Feminists may argue that women should have the freedom to decide
how they wish to grieve and when they are ready to move forward with their
lives, without societal or legal pressures only paying attention to the
negative side rather than the efficiency of such a system. Another rule set is
that women going through menstruation must not be allowed to fast. Now,
menstruation is the shedding of the walls of the uterus which occurs every
month. During this period, a woman loses at least 5 to 80 milliliters (about
2.71 oz), while anything over 80 is considered heavy bleeding. This loss of
blood requires that the body receives minerals and ions to make up for the
blood and to provide energy to help them through the day. Women have
been forbidden from fasting during their period not because they are seen as
impure, but because it is a danger to their health. The lack of food will lead
to a lack of energy causing the women to feel faintish. A feminist will argue
that it is a biological process that cannot be controlled and that the idea of
being excluded from practices, is seen as creating stigmas around
menstruation, when all that is being done is for the well-being of the women
and to make sure that they do not over-exert their selves especially if they
can do the fasting later. The message I am trying to convey is that feminists
should be a little sensitive to the beliefs and values of the people who adhere
to these practices.

Opposition:
(As the proposition stated previously,) Feminism is a social, political, and
cultural movement that advocates for the rights, equality, and empowerment
of all genders, particularly focusing on addressing and rectifying the
inequalities and discrimination that women have historically faced. The goal
of feminism is to achieve a world where all individuals, regardless of gender,
have equal opportunities, rights, and freedoms. Religion is also a worldwide
phenomenon that has shaped many societies and cultures, with their own
rules and ways of life. But an important question to ask is why there are
different rules based on gender in a religion? Is it because one gender is
viewed less than the other? To settle that let’s talk about the patriarchal
structures of some religions. Most religious institutions and practices are
rooted in patriarchal structures that prioritize male authority and leadership
while subordinating women. These structures often manifest in gender-based
rules that limit women's roles in religious rituals, leadership, and decision-
making. Rules such as the wearing of veils for women alone can be seen as
sexist and as restriction on women. Why must women alone wear a garment
covering their face? Though religion may say that the wearing of veils is to
protect and maintain a modest atmosphere among women, it is limiting the
decisions a woman can make about her own body. Rules like this do not only
affect women of the religion but also other women outside the religion, in the
sense that they will be viewed as immodest because they aren’t wearing
veils which may reduce their moral and surround them with an atmosphere
of immodesty which makes them vulnerable to sexual attacks from men. The
waiting period after the death or divorce of a husband, known as iddah, is
said to have been put in place to protect women from the scorn and criticism
of people in the society because she moved on too fast from her dead or
divorced husband and she may be called a heartless and insensitive. Iddah is
also said to be used to clarify the lineage of the child and is crucial to Islamic
law for issues related to inheritance. Here’s an important question. Why isn’t
the word of the mother enough evidence? Why must a period of 4 months
and 10 days be imposed on a woman against her will. How long it takes for a
woman to get over whatever emotional damage may have been caused after
the divorce or death of her husband, depends on her. Why doesn’t the man
also get a waiting period? Doesn’t the man also need coping period? Why
isn’t the man criticized for moving on quickly after the death or divorce of his
wife? Why doesn’t he have to wait and prove that his child is his child? There
are many questions that must be pondered upon. This waiting period can
also be perceived as a tool of patriarchal control, where a woman’s behavior
and choices are regulated by societal norms that prioritize male authority
and lineage. This could be seen as reinforcing the notion that a woman's
primary identity is tied to her marital status, rather than her individuality –
which is every human’s weapon in society. Another thing I would like to
address is the separation of men and women in prayer spaces. Why are men
and women being separated during prayer if prayer is just the
communication between said religion’s God and the person praying. This act
can be seen to be completely undermining the work of all feminists for the
past hundreds of years and reinforcing gender inequality by physically and
symbolically separating women from men. This segregation may perpetuate
the idea that women are less capable or less worthy of participating fully in
religious life. Then there is the topic of women being forbidden from fasting
while going through menstruation. Now, menstruation is the shedding of the
walls of the uterus which occurs every month. During this period, a woman
loses at least 5 to 80 milliliters (about 2.71 oz), while anything over 80 is
considered heavy bleeding. This is a natural process that all females go
through and cannot be controlled. A female being excluded from activities
such as prayer because of something out of her control such as
menstruation, makes her seem impure and incapable of worship just
because she is bleeding. Such practices perpetuate stigmas around
menstruation which makes it seem like it is something shameful. I am not
here to disrespect any religion, but I believe that we fight for the same thing
and that feminism can be incorporated into religion.

Second Motion:
Proposition:
The Yugoslav Wars were a series of ethnically based conflicts that took place
in the territory of the former Yugoslavia from 1991 to 2001. These wars were
marked by widespread atrocities, including genocide, war crimes, and ethnic
cleansing. They led to the breakup of Yugoslavia into several independent
countries. In the aftermath of these conflicts, efforts were made to address
the atrocities through the establishment of the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and various Truth and
Reconciliation Commissions (TRCs). Yugoslavia was a multi-ethnic federation
composed of six republics: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Montenegro, Macedonia, and Serbia, which included the autonomous
provinces of Kosovo and Vojvodina. The federation began to unravel in the
late 1980s and early 1990s due to rising nationalist sentiments, economic
crises, and the weakening of the central government. TRCs were established
in various parts of the former Yugoslavia to promote reconciliation,
document human rights abuses, and foster dialogue between ethnic groups.
While no single, formal TRC was established for the entire region, various
local, national, and regional initiatives have contributed to the broader goals
of truth-telling, reconciliation, and healing. While the ICTY focused on
retributive justice by prosecuting individuals responsible for war crimes,
TRCs offer a restorative approach that emphasizes healing, reconciliation,
and societal transformation. Given the complex ethnic, cultural, and
historical context of the Yugoslav Wars, TRCs would have been better suited
to address the deep-seated grievances, foster national unity, and promote
long-term peace in the region. TRCs prioritize healing and reconciliation over
punishment. The aftermath of the Yugoslav Wars left a society deeply
divided along ethnic lines, with lingering mistrust, hatred, and trauma. TRCs
focus on uncovering the truth, acknowledging the suffering of all victims, and
fostering dialogue between different communities. This process helps to heal
the wounds of war, promotes forgiveness, and rebuilds trust, which is
essential for long-term peace and stability. In contrast, the ICTY's focus on
prosecuting individuals may have exacerbated ethnic tensions by being
perceived as biased or as targeting specific groups. TRCs are inherently
more inclusive and participatory. They involve the voices of victims,
survivors, and the wider community in the process of truth-telling and
reconciliation. This inclusivity allows for a more comprehensive
understanding of the conflict, including the social, economic, and political
factors that contributed to the violence. By giving a platform to all affected
individuals, TRCs can address the collective trauma of entire communities,
not just the crimes of a few individuals. The ICTY, on the other hand, focused
primarily on high-profile war criminals, often overlooking the broader societal
impact of the conflict. TRCs offer a process that can be more aligned with
local traditions, values, and cultural contexts. The process of reconciliation
can be tailored to reflect the unique needs and customs of the communities
involved, ensuring that the outcomes are relevant and meaningful to the
people most affected. This sense of local ownership is crucial for the
legitimacy and sustainability of peacebuilding efforts. The ICTY, being an
international tribunal, was often perceived as an external imposition,
disconnected from the local realities and concerns of the people in the
former Yugoslavia. TRCs are not only about addressing past mistakes but
also about laying the foundation for a peaceful future. They can recommend
institutional reforms, promote human rights education, and suggest
measures to prevent the recurrence of violence. This forward-looking
approach is essential for breaking the cycle of violence and ensuring that the
lessons of the past are learned and internalized by future generations. The
ICTY's focus on retribution, while important for accountability, does not
necessarily contribute to these broader goals of societal transformation.
TRCs also do not require so much financial stability and there isn’t any wait
before action is taken. Various civil society organizations and NGOs across
the former Yugoslavia have facilitated dialogue between ethnic groups.
These efforts have helped break down barriers, promote understanding, and
reduce tensions in communities deeply affected. While the ICTY played a
significant role in bringing war criminals to justice, it was limited in its ability
to foster genuine reconciliation and peace in the former Yugoslavia. TRCs,
with their emphasis on healing, inclusivity, local ownership, and long-term
peacebuilding, would have been better suited to address the complex
aftermath of the Yugoslav Wars. Only through a process that prioritizes
reconciliation over retribution can a divided society hope to move forward
and rebuild in the aftermath of such devastating conflict. While
accountability is important, it is equally vital to address the psychological
and social wounds inflicted by conflict. The focus on legal proceedings in the
ICTY may neglect the emotional aspects of healing. TRCs provide a holistic
approach that acknowledges the pain of victims, fostering a sense of
community and understanding.

Opposition:
The Yugoslav Wars were a series of ethnically based conflicts that took place
in the territory of the former Yugoslavia from 1991 to 2001. These wars were
marked by widespread atrocities, including genocide, war crimes, and ethnic
cleansing. They led to the breakup of Yugoslavia into several independent
countries. In the aftermath of these conflicts, efforts were made to address
the atrocities through the establishment of the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and various Truth and
Reconciliation Commissions (TRCs). Yugoslavia was a multi-ethnic federation
composed of six republics: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Montenegro, Macedonia, and Serbia, which included the autonomous
provinces of Kosovo and Vojvodina. The federation began to unravel in the
late 1980s and early 1990s due to rising nationalist sentiments, economic
crises, and the weakening of the central government. The ICTY (International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia) established a framework for
international law by holding individuals accountable for war crimes, crimes
against humanity, and genocide. This tribunal emphasized the principle of
accountability, demonstrating that no one is above the law, regardless of
their position or status. By prosecuting high-ranking officials and military
leaders, the ICTY sent a clear message that perpetrators of serious crimes
would face justice, thereby deterring future atrocities. The ICTY played a
crucial role in developing legal precedents for prosecuting war crimes, which
have been utilized in subsequent international tribunals. This contributes to
the global body of international humanitarian law. The tribunal established
crucial legal standards, such as the definitions of genocide and crimes
against humanity, influencing international legal frameworks and enhancing
global justice mechanisms. The ICTY had extensive investigative powers,
allowing it to collect evidence, interview witnesses, and conduct thorough
investigations. This capacity led to more rigorous and detailed legal
proceedings compared to many TRCs, which often rely on testimony without
the same level of forensic and evidential rigor. The ability to produce
comprehensive evidence supports the credibility of the trials and the
eventual rulings. The ICTY's trials resulted in detailed documentation of the
events surrounding the Yugoslav Wars, creating an official historical record.
This documentation is essential for understanding the complexities of the
conflict and recognizing the suffering of victims. Unlike TRCs, which may
focus more on narratives and reconciliation, the ICTY provides a factual basis
that can be referred to in future discussions about justice and accountability.
The prosecution of individuals for their roles in the Yugoslav Wars serves as a
deterrent against future war crimes and human rights violations. By
demonstrating that the international community will hold violators
accountable, the ICTY promotes a culture of accountability that can influence
the behavior of current and future leaders. While TRCs emphasize
reconciliation, true healing cannot occur without accountability for those
responsible for heinous crimes. The ICTY’s focus on accountability serves as
a prerequisite for genuine reconciliation, as victims cannot fully heal if the
perpetrators are not held responsible for their actions. While TRCs prioritize
truth-telling, this can sometimes lead to a lack of justice for victims. The
ICTY’s legal framework ensures that justice is served, which can reinforce
trust in the legal system and promote a more stable society in the long run.
While TRCs have their merits, it is crucial to understand that the ICTY played
an indispensable role in the aftermath of the Yugoslav Wars. Justice is a
prerequisite for reconciliation, and without holding perpetrators accountable,
true healing cannot occur. The ICTY was essential in ensuring that war
criminals were punished, providing a sense of justice to victims, and sending
a clear message that atrocities will not go unpunished. TRCs, while valuable,
cannot replace the need for legal accountability in such grave cases of war
crimes and genocide. The ICTY's work in prosecuting war criminals was
crucial in establishing justice and preventing impunity. While TRCs can
complement the process, they cannot replace the need for a legal framework
to hold individuals accountable for their actions. Justice and reconciliation
must go hand in hand, but one cannot exist without the other. The ICTY laid
the foundation for accountability, and without it, true reconciliation would be
impossible.
 Public Speech: Math is not just
numbers
Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests, and fellow enthusiasts of
learning,

Today, I want to take you on a journey beyond the surface of what many
perceive as the world of mathematics. Often, when we think of math, we
conjure up images of endless numbers, equations, and formulas. But I’m
here to tell you that math is not just numbers. It is so much more—an
elegant language, a powerful tool, and a profound way of understanding the
world around us.

Mathematics as a Language

First and foremost, mathematics is a language—a universal language that

transcends borders and cultures. It’s a way of expressing ideas,
relationships, and patterns that would be difficult, if not impossible, to
convey through words alone. When we see a mathematical equation, we’re
witnessing a story being told—a story of balance, of symmetry, of the
intricate dance between variables and constants.

Take, for example, the Pythagorean theorem. To the untrained eye, it might
just be a formula: a² + b² = c². But in reality, it’s a beautiful narrative that
reveals the relationship between the sides of a right triangle. It’s a language
that speaks to us about the harmony and consistency of the universe,
showing us that no matter where we are in the world, the principles of
geometry hold true.

Mathematics as a Tool for Problem-Solving

Beyond being a language, mathematics is also a powerful tool for problem-

solving. It’s not just about crunching numbers; it’s about applying logic,
reasoning, and creativity to find solutions to complex problems. Whether it’s
determining the most efficient way to allocate resources, predicting the
trajectory of a rocket, or even analyzing trends in social behavior, math
provides us with the tools to make sense of the complexities of life.

Consider the concept of algebra. At its core, algebra is not just about solving
for x or y. It’s about understanding relationships and making connections. It
teaches us to think critically, to break down problems into manageable parts,
and to approach challenges with a structured mindset. These skills are not
confined to the classroom; they are essential life skills that we use every
day, often without even realizing it.

Mathematics as an Art

Now, let’s explore math as an art form. Yes, you heard me right—math is an
art. It’s a discipline that requires creativity, intuition, and a sense of wonder.
The Fibonacci sequence, the golden ratio, fractals—these are not just
mathematical concepts; they are expressions of beauty found in nature,
architecture, and art.

Mathematicians often speak of the elegance of a proof or the beauty of a

particular equation. This is not mere sentimentality; it’s an acknowledgment
of the aesthetic dimension of mathematics. Just as a painter sees beauty in
colors and shapes, a mathematician sees beauty in patterns, symmetry, and
the elegance of a well-crafted theorem.

Mathematics as a Way of Thinking

Lastly, math is a way of thinking. It teaches us to be precise, to question

assumptions, and to seek evidence before drawing conclusions. In a world
where information is abundant and sometimes overwhelming, mathematical
thinking helps us navigate through the noise, discern truth from falsehood,
and make informed decisions.

Moreover, math fosters resilience. It teaches us that mistakes are not failures
but opportunities to learn. Each incorrect answer is a step closer to
understanding, a chance to refine our approach and try again. This mindset
is invaluable, not just in math, but in life itself.

Conclusion

In conclusion, math is not just numbers. It is a language that speaks to the

universal truths of our world, a tool that empowers us to solve problems, an
art that reveals the beauty of patterns, and a way of thinking that sharpens
our minds and our spirits. The next time you encounter a math problem, I
encourage you to look beyond the numbers. See the story it tells, the beauty
it reveals, and the potential it holds to unlock new understandings of the
world around us.

Thank you.