Debate: P.E.S.T vs PCP

People Empowering Social Transformation (P.E.S.T) and Progressive Conservative Party (P.C.P) took their positions on the podium for their discussions relating to the policies in the manifestoes of each other. P.E.ST provided the opening arguments by addressing the nation after the cyberattacks and provided their empathy for the fallen soldiers. They would further aim to protect the President by providing him with security and building up the communication channels and streamlining them as soon as an unprecedented attack of this scale would take place. There was no point of information from the party of opposition for which the P.C.P put forward their opening statements. P.C.P talked about reaching out to the strategic partners of the nation who could assist them in these times of conflict and in turn create a black box which would be a database constituting the backup of the data. There was a point of interest from the party members of P.E.S.T where they questioned the vagueness of words they have put in the form of promises in their manifesto and all through the while, they could not institute a framework for the implication of their policies, in light of the emergency attacks.

P.E.S.T provided their main arguments by focusing on the point that they should know the good of the people and there would be an expectation for monopolistic competition to be present in the market, in accordance with the economic policies provided in the manifesto of the opposition. P.C.P provided their main arguments by citing that the youth is the future of India and their manifestos do not intend on giving false promises but quick and efficient responses. The point of information from the opposition was in context with their policy for ‘theatrisation’ which existed within the Defense sector. The main arguments which constituted the political party P.E.S.T revolved on the angle of questioning which made it clear that the opposition was not making any statements and they were enforcing their beliefs and promises, and the public should be sensible while choosing their representative.

The Progressive Conservative Party put forward their perspective on the manifesto of the opposition and promised to accept a wrong report uploaded by the party members. In accordance with the policy on Electronic Vehicles, the use of lithium-ion batteries for the manufacturing of EVs also contributed to environmental degradation of landfills. Their belief on not giving false promises and instead optimizing their decision in respect with the efficient implementation of the policies would serve as the crux of their core ideology and served as the purpose of the political party.

This was followed by a Q/A session from the different media houses and the think tanks who posed serious questions regarding their party manifestos and criticized the ideologies and the vision and mission statements of the dual political parties in conversation.