Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 33

1. This house believes that animals have rights.

(+) Affirmative Team

- Animals are living things too.

- Animals rights is fundamental principle


Animals rights is fundamental principle of modern animals rights movement. Based on
britanica.com animals rights is the fundamental principle of modern animal rights movement
is basic interest that deserve recognition, consideration and protection.
- Animal like humans. Animals are very similar with us. They maybe have fur, tails, and four
legs, but they also eat and breath like humans do. And of course they can feel sadness, pain,
loneliness, frustation and happiness. Just like humans do. Jeremy Bentham the founder of the
reforming utilitarian school of moral philosophy says that animals have ability to feel suffer
in the same way and the same degree that humas do. They feel pain, pleasure, fear, frustation,
loneliness, and motherly love
- Animal Lives Can Be Saved. When products are tested on animals they can potentially get
hurt and, if the products are tested in them, they wont get hurt. Furthermore, some products
might not hurt them directly but might affect them in their social lives and in the nature of
what they do, making them suffer until the end of their days. Unfortunately, however, a lot of
the products we use on animals arent really approved to be used on humans, which is
something that should also be fought for.
- Tests Might Be Unreliable. Although it is true some tests on animals can help us evolve in
the medicinal field, it might also not be true depending on very specific situations. Some
animals are extreme different from us and as such, a lot of the tests conducted in them will be
completely inconclusive regarding our health and our well-being. Furthermore, animals dont
understand what is being done and what is happening to them and this will certainly induce
stress in them which might also damage and modify the results of the tests making them
inconclusive. These tests could be completely avoided.
- Mobility is the animals freedom. As we know we can see many animals live in the zoo or in
the cages with limited mobility. Lets see in the zoo, although the animals can live in the
duplicate habitat, but how can we say that the animals in them have good lives when we lock
them into enclosures thousands of times smaller than their natural habitat ? Based on The
emotional Lives of Animals book. Says that animals mobility is the animals freedom. So
animals right its use to animals to have the right about their freedom.
- Animal population can be disappear by exploitation. In his book animal liberation Piter
Singer says that animals surely deserve to lives free from exploitation . As we know
overexploitation is the over use of animals species by people for food, clothing, pets,
medicine, sport and many other purposes. The hunting, trapping, collecting and fishing of
animals at unsustainable levels is not something new. Oke, besides have you see elephant or
dolpins in the circuss ? if you see that, is a good time to think more deeply about animal
exploitation. In the fact the population of elephant in the central africa has decreased by
almost 2-3% between 2002-2012. Animals expolitation can broke the ecosystem too. In the
fact animals are exploited and abuse in many ways including :
a. Raising them for food an clothing
b. In entertaiment such as circuss
c. In science like testing for medicine or cosmetics product
If the animals has extinct of course the food chain has broken and surely the ecosystem has
broekn too.

(-) Negative Team

- Prevents safety testing


Is it enough to save animal lives when the cost is a human life placed in danger or lost? New
products and medications that could save people but are considered harmful until tested on
certain subjects will never be used if animal testing is no longer allowed. It would be even
more immoral if test subjects used are humans themselves. This can have been going on with
clinical trials, but the only difference is that medications used in these trials have already
been tested on animals and are considered safe.

- Stunt research development


Animal testing opens doors in research of new products and medication that will significantly
speed up the development in the medicine field. Drugs used to prevent and treat cancer, HIV,
diabetes, and other serious conditions have all been tested on animals first. Animal rights put
a stop on such research, risking the lives of humans in the process.

- Reduce risk on human lives


Because products and medications are first tested on animals, no human lives will be put in
danger or lost. Exposure of humans to risky substances or possibly hazardous materials will
also be cut down, preventing diseases and other side effects. Therefore, animal testing
ultimately saves humans, even if this is at the expense of non-human animals.

- Pose problems with food consumption


Animal meat provides a different source of protein, vitamins and minerals, something that
opponents of animal rights claim that will not be found on any vegetable or fruit. Moreover,
not everyone can be a vegetarian, and those who are not vegan dont see anything wrong with
eating meat or wearing fur, but they do take exception with their rights being imposed on.
Simply put, animal rights take away some human rights.

- Blur the lines between human and animal rights


If animals are viewed as humans, distinction between the two species will be blurred. Most
opponents believe that animals do not have the same rights as humans, which means they will
never be equal. Proponents, however, would say that animals should be free from human
exploitation and cruelty, even if they are below humans in the natural world chain.

- Animal dont have moral right. Based on Raymond G. Frey in 1980 he says that animals
dont have moral right because animals have not the same emotional and intelectual as
human. Animals cant distinguish between good or bad, they have no free will, they just
follow their instinct. You cant convince a tiger not to hunt when its hungry, not even if the
potential prey would be someone s baby. This is because the tiger cant see its doing bad by
hunting your baby, so it cannot make a choice, between feeding its stomach or sparing the life
of baby. This is the most obvious difference between an animal and a human : the ability of
choosing on moral basis.

- Animals dont have souls


- God give humans dominican over the animals
- Humans have more intelegent and intelectual then animals
- God created halal animals its can be a food for human beeing
- Animals dont have reason to think and have no minds

- Animal are natural resource for humans. as we know animals have many benefit for humans
life like meat such as pork, beef poutry and fish these including many protein, B-vitamin
(Thiamin, Ribovlavin) Zinz, Magnesium its very important for bones, muscles, cartilage skin
and blood. Seafood contain 3-omega fatty acids aid in brain developmet, and many other
animal product like milks, yogurt which very importan for young children in growth period.

- Not Everyone is a Vegetarian. Some feel that the animal rights movement can somewhat
impose the views of others on everyone. Since many people are not vegetarians and do not
see the harm in eating meat or wearing fur, it is difficult for them to agree with their own
rights being imposed on. Giving animals more rights is seen by many to take away some
rights from humans. Every people cant become a vegetarian. (lowman, 2000) eating animals
product can also improve brain, a study has shown that children who consume only plant and
other non animal the brain function has delayed.

- Animal kill each other. As we know without we are hunt or exploited animals they constant
extinct by natural selection.

- Animals have benefit for experiment. think about this: if animals were to have rights, do you
think they would choose to be experimented on or not for medicine purpose ? the answer
obviously no. SO, now that we dont have animals to experiment on, would you like to
volunteer yourself as the experiment subject ? for example to test medicine how if the
medicine failed experiment and it kills you, compare if use mouse it will not so affected
because mouse is easier to reproduce.

2. This house would restrict media reporting on violent crimes

(+) Affirmative Team

- Most of television viewers are children

Reason : in fact based on IDI research indonesia childrens watch television 30-35 hours per
week or 1560-1820 hours per year. This result greater than childrens time to study in primary
school just 1000 hours per years

- Restrict media reporting on violent crimes give impact people can feel safely.
Reason : North Korea for example only allows the reporting of positive news, this would
obviously mean that there would be no reports on violent crimes occurring in North Korea
although there can be reports on other countries in order to highlight the difference between
North Korea and the rest of the world. However North Korea is an extreme example where
the state prevents all reporting. There are other examples where there are de-facto restrictions
on reporting. For example in the New Zealand city of Gisborne the police in 2010 stopped
telling the local newspaper about incidents of crime so that people feel safer, this does not
prevent reporting of violent crime but restricts it and means it is not so likely to be prominent.

- Crime news can create the crime behavior

Reason : Lowery and Defleur (1983) says that media messages are stimuli that can affect the
emotions and sentiments of individuals. The behavior of individuals who should and who
should not be studied effectively through the media. Neither the criminal behavior or a crime
that can be learned through the media.
Best on the research Taft and England (1964) expressly says that the newspaper teaches the
techniques of crime. Best on the research Zulkarmein Nasution says that also thought that
crime impressions give inspiration to commit a crime itself. Not a few cases of crimes
committed under the influence of crime news delivery itself.

(-) Negative Team

- Indonesia broadcasting commission (KPI) has labeled the programs in television show such
as child, teen, adult, and guides parenting.

Reason : As we know Indonesia has television program labels such as child, teen, adult and
guides parenting. Indonesia broadcasting commission (KPI) give it to help parents to know
what the programs are save for their children. Beside that this labels also based on Indonesia
broadcasting commission number: 2 on 2007 about behavior broadcasting compass. Every
broadcasting institute required to attach the program classifications based on viewer age. This
information must show in every programs and broadcast until the program ends. It use to help
public identification the programs and to save child and teen for danger programs.

- KPI has banned adult content from being broadcast before 10 p.m

Reason : President Jokowi called on 25 february for the issuance of sticter regulations for
television programs and improved filtering of TV shows that could potentially have a bad
bullying and other forms of violance against children. Jokowi said cases of violance against
children were still underreported and called on all parties, including the Indonesia
Broadcasting Commision (KPI), to play roles in preventing such violence. Izy Muzayyad the
KPI deputy chairman said adult shows have to be broadcast after 10.pm, because between 5
and 8 p.m people including children tend to watch TV.

- Parents can be more aware


Reason: With news crime in television or newspaper, parents know many crime cases arround
they and their children live, and know about the reason why the crimes happened, if the
parents know the reason of course parents can be more aware to save their children and stay
to give protection if the children have potentiall to do it. And know what can they do if the
cases happend in theiy and their children live.

3. This house would use HIV testing result as a requirement for a job recruitment

(+) Affirmative Team

1st speaker:

HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) is a virus which attacks humans immune system so
that they will be weak in defending from any viruses. This virus works by killing T cells and
macrophages in the immune system. It can induce the disease of AIDS.

Talking about HIV testing result will be used as a requirement for a job requirement, I think it
makes sense because according to DetikHealth, Michael Horberg MD., a director of HIV-
AIDS in Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, California, says that even the most common symptoms
of HIV first stage isnt found. The symptoms usually exist years after the infection or even
decades after it, so no one doesnt realize until they undergo a checkup. Because of that, we
strongly agree with this motion. Also, we still have several reasons to support our team line.

1. Infected applicants are able to infect others unconsciously

As what Ive said before, the symptoms of HIV exist years or decades after the infection.
Usually, it takes 5 up to 10 years for them to be found and realized. This stage is called as
incubation stage. However, what makes dangerous is people infected by HIV are able to
transmit the virus even though they are still in this stage. Meanwhile, the transmission of
HIV virus in workplace is rampant through injury or blood contact.

2. Prevent the transmission of HIV in workplace

The company can prevent the transmission of HIV in workplace if they minimize or
diminish the number of employee with HIV and AIDS in the company. Also, the
company can wisely reject the applicants with HIV positive because they have to think
about the companys future and see what is going to happen if the employees of the
company are mostly HIV infected.
- Decreased the transmission number of HIV. As we know the number transmission number of
HIV in Banyumas has increased every year. Widyaningrum the Banyumas HIV activist says
that now there are 1.332 people in Banyumas has infected HIV. Beside that, based on Jogja
Daily News says that until march 2014 , Jogja has 714 HIV cases. And it increased every
years until 5,4%.

- The HIV transmission in workplace is very susceptible. Based on Jogja Daily News says that
until last year the number of HIV cases in Jogja has increased until 5,4% and more than 80%
HIV people is productive age, so it probably happen in the workplace. Besides, the
employees have bad lifestyle like over work, have no more time to take a rest, eat junkfood
and other bad habit. Which can cause the human imune system is drop.

- Prevent the HIV transmission in workplace. Based on Okezone, Evodia Iswanti the Country
Manager Indonesia Business Coalition on AIDS give the example of HIV transmission in
workplace. She says that in Zimbabwe company from 11.500 employees , there are 3400
employees has infected HIV.

- People with hiv can be infected the other diseases. During acute HIV infection, many people
have flu-like symptoms, such as fever, headache, and rash. In this acute stage of infection,
HIV multiplies rapidly and spreads through out the body. The virus attacks and destroys the
infection-fighting CD4 cells of the immune system. Yes, As we know HIV virus infect
leukosit sel that is a human imune system so she/he can infected by the other diseases.
- HIV suffer can be decreased the work productivity. Based on Okezone, Evodia Iswanti the
Country Manager Indonesia Business Coalition on AIDS says that, the HIV number case
usually happen in a productive age so it can give a negative impact to the company. She also
says that. Firstly, the employee often absent from work, and then there will be replacement.
This can cause the iiregularity in the companys system and will decrease the companys
productivity.

- If the people with HIV are injured the blood existed is dangerous for other people
- The company of course need healty employee to make the healthy workplace.

(-) Negative Team

1st speaker:

Talking about this house would use HIV testing result as a requirement for job recruitment; I
doubt its truly a good thing to do. Why? Because, we see in our society that there is still a
stigma about people with HIV and AIDS. They see that people with HIV and AIDS are those
who are mentally ill, because they only see that HIV is transmitted through sexual activity.
Instead of it, were taking the result of 99th International Labor Conference held in Geneva
on 2010, International Labor organization has stated in HIV and AIDS recommendation
chapter III verse 9, No workers should be allowed to undergo the HIV test or disclose their
HIV status. It means that the world has stated that no need an HIV testing result required for
job recruitment. So, based on that, we cant agree with this motion.

Besides, we have several reasons why we disagree with this motion:

1. It breaks the rights of privacy and secret

Everybody has their right of privacy and secret. They have something which they dont
want to be exposed and only known by their family and their close friends. For example,
nurses are not permitted to tell any visitors in the hospital about a patients disease
because they have to respect the patients right of privacy and secret.

Whats the relation with HIV testing result?

Not everyone is willing to know that they are infected by HIV, especially in this country.
Some people still see at it as a disgrace, and thats why they keep this as a secret.
However, once they apply for a job and the company requires the HIV testing result, it is
possible if they are rejected and everyone may judge them. Since theres still a stigma,
people tend to stigmatize and accuse them. Of course, they are not comfortable with it. It
makes them depressed and inflicts the HIV turn into AIDS.

2. Everyone has right for work and having a decent life

Based on Indonesian Constitution paragraph 27 verses 2, it says that every citizen has
their right to work and decent living for humanity. Every citizen here means everyone in
this country regardless to their health status. So, if a company asks for a HIV testing
result, the company has run against this constitution and, of course, this country.

- HIV testing its very expensive

Reason : As we know hiv testing its very expensive. Just for one time testing it cost Rp
400.000- Rp 600.000 pe. If the company use this testing it can blow up the budget,
meanwhile people with HIV can be accepted because of the techincal error and other else.
Moreover if the company burdens the fee to the applicants, they will not be interested to enter
because of big budget. Surely they think that the possibility of pass the test is not clear yet.

- Now there are ARV drugs for HIV patient, its can make the condition of HIV patients be
better.

Reason : Based on Kompas. In fact in 2014 ARV drugs dereased the died victim number
cause HIV/AIDS until 0,04 % . Since 2013-2014 the receiver of ARV has increased, now
there are 43.104 people get this drugs and recover. So i think this testing dont needed
because although someone infected this virus its dont give seriously affect. Someone with
HIV also can work like other healty people.

- Every human have right for work, and right for has a decent life.
Reason : based on constitution 1945. Paragraph 27 verse 2 says thst every citizen has the
right to work and a decent living for having.

- Break privacy right


- Disriminated the HIV patients to work

- Many HIV patients in the productive age. Based on Kompas. HIV people is productive age.
More than 50% in 2011, the patient risk HIV transmission is not cause of sexual intercourse.
But, it causes of contaminated injection, through placenta, injury contact, etc.

4. This house believes that student should be allowed to use mobile phones at school

(+) Affirmative Team

1st speaker

Mobile phone is a communication instrument which helps us to communicate with other


people though the one were talking with is miles away from us. Through mobile phone, we
communicate using phone call or short message service (SMS). Even more, in this modern
era, there are smartphone which doesnt only provide phone call and SMS, but also internet
service and many useful applications so we are able to surf the internet and launch any
application such as games, maps, and electronic dictionary.

Nowadays, we see that mobile phones, especially smartphones, are essential for us. People at
least have 1 mobile phone in their house. Moreover, if were trying to see specifically to the
students, they also have their own mobile phone inside their bags or their pockets. The basic
reason why they bring mobile phones is because it helps them to communicate with their
parents at home and search another reference in the internet about the lesson theyre learning.
Indeed, its true because they have internet and instant phone call. So, thats why were
absolutely believed that student should be allowed to use mobile phone at school. Instead, we
have several reasons to support our team line.

1. Mobile phone helps to do the instant communication

Talking about this reason, we can see from 2 point of views. First is from the students,
and second is from the parents.

From the students side, mobile phone helps them to communicate with the teacher if the
teacher cant be found in the office or cant attend to the class and ask any assignment.
Also, students are able inform their friends who are not in the class that the teacher
already come. And it helps the chairman to ask a friend if she/he isnt coming to school.

From the parents side, mobile phone helps them to get in contact with their children
whether theres any family urgency such as familys death or any sudden occasion which
needs the childrens attendance. And they are able to detect their childrens situation if
their children arent home at the usual time.
2. Mobile phone provides a light and complete reference for students

If conventionally students go to the library and bring bulks of thick books for their
reference, they dont need to burden themselves anymore if they use the e-book or PDF
reader provided in the mobile phone. Students can get so much electronic books from
internet with varieties of contents and newest edition. Meanwhile, schools libraries often
have less reference for the students and are out of date.

I strongly believe that student should be allowed to use mobile phones at school for many
reasons. Based on Corconadia Online Education says that mobile phones are good for
education, safety and much more.

1. Mobile phones are good for education


Mobile phones are good for education because, first you can use mobile phone for research
purposes. Allthough most school have at least one computer in a classroom and a computer
lab, sometimes this still isnt enough. It can also be expensive to provide a computer to each
student at school, so a good option is to use mobile phone for research instead. Next, i want
to talk about why apps are good for education. Some people think that some apps are bad and
kids can get distracted if use them in class. And the truth is that cell phone have any
educational apss as well which do you think would be more fun and exciting for a student,
either studying with a boring book is hard to understand or playing educational apps that is
still studying but more exciting ? I would definitely choose the second choice.
Here are some good features of phones that are good for school :
1. Dictionary, its can help you defined some word if you dont understand the word and
must be easier to find it
2. Calculator its can help you to acount the dificult number.
3. Stopwatch its very help you in the sport lesson or science lesson you can use to know
how many time you need for experiment or for some sport activity like swiming, runing, etc.

2. Mobile phones keep you safe, believe it or not, a mobile phones could save your live. Here is
an example on 20 April, 1999. That 2 teenagers walked into Columbine High School and
carry sub machine guns and homemade boombs. Then they are try to kill 13 innocent
students in there. When the 13 students were murdered, one of student called 911 and
describe the location and situation to asked the rescue team help. After that the rescue team
save the 13 innocent student. Looked if the one of students dont called 911, of course many
other students would have died in the day. From this stories we can take some conclusion if
the mobile phone is very usefull for student cause its can help you in emergency situation.

3. Mobile phones are great for teaching 21st century skills. If you want kids to learn to
collaborate, what better tool can you use than a phone ? Video conferencing with people all
over the world become easy. One of the main arguments againts student phone use is that kids
might cheat. My response is that test that are so lacking in rigor that sudent can look up
answer on a phone or get them from another student are lousy and outdated in a world where
information is free and easy. We need to get used to the fact that kids dont need to know the
stuff nearly as much as they need to learn to use that stuff Tests of recall dont prepare
our student for the world ahead. Kids know this-its why they think school is irrelevant. Kids
working together to find solutions to problems (collaboration) should be encouraged, not
labeled as cheating. Policies that ban mobile phone because student might text each other
are short sighted. As Kevin Honeycutt is fond of saying students used to pass notes on paper.
We never banner paper.

4.To Teach Responsibility


Students know they shouldnt use their cell phones in school to play Angry Birds, or listen to
music, or text their friends about the quiz they just took. Phones and tablets should be used
responsibly and for educational purposes. Students could do research for English papers, or
download an app that provides extra information on one of the chemical elements in the
periodic table. When necessary, teachers could combat cheating by making students put their
phones on airplane mode or any mode that will not allow them to send/receive any
messages or use the Internet. Whenever there is a test, teachers can make students put their
mobile devices in the front of the classroom until the test is over.

(-) Negatif Team

1st speaker

Well, its undeniable that in this modern era, mobile phone is already becoming a part of our
daily needs. It helps 2 or more people who are spaced by distance to communicate with each
other, including parents with their children. Based on this reason, parents buy their children a
mobile phone to be brought to school. However, often they dont think that mostly children,
from elementary school up to junior high school, arent able enough to divide the right and
wrong in using things, including mobile phone. They use mobile phone mostly for their fun
only such as playing games or visiting any restricted websites in the internet.

The more specific example is pornography and pornoaction among students in els-shs. Based
on the data collected by Indonesian Commission of Children protection, there are at least 84
pornography case reported among students per October 2013, and one of the major factor is
the advance development of information and communication technology. So, this is the
reason why Im afraid that our team doesnt believe that students should be allowed to use
mobile phones at school. We also have their reason to support our team line.

1. Mobile phone causes the decrease of students interest in reading.

Yeah, mobile phone provides an application to read the electronic books or PDF files so
it helps students to get more reference. But, are you sure that students use their mobile
phone mostly to read the references? I think Im not sure with it. Because, as what Ive
said before, students are interested to use mobile phone for their fun only by playing
games or opening the social media, and they only launch the e-book reader if the
occasion needs them to do so, such as to complete their assignment. Instead, according to
I Wayan Mudiyasah, the head of education authority in Jayapura, he says that instead of
the lack support of the family and the environment, the great development of information
and communication technology also plays the role.
2. Mobile phone induce the severe risk of individualism in students

Maybe we still remember our childhood times and what we did when we were in
schools break time. We played so many traditional games with our friends such as tug of
war, hide and seek, and etc. However, in this advanced era, with mobile phones in their
hands, what are the students doing to kill the time during the break time? They choose to
play games in the mobile phone. There are no communications with the surroundings and
they are busy with their own things in silence. Of course, if this case happens in a long
period, it can cause bad effect for them. Whats that? Individualism and its not good for
their social life, truthfully.

Accorsing to nicholas can throught Miami Herald

- Mobile Phone can causes Student Distraction


Reason : mobile phones, and especially smartphones, can present considerable distraction to
their owners and nearby classmates. Distractions come in the form of text messages, phone
calls, unrestricted Internet access and any number of entertaining applications. When set to
run silently, these phones can also distract both when students are in class and during free
periods that ordinarily could be dedicated to studying.

- Mobile Phone Can disturb the students consentration


Reason : A cell phone going off can be extremely disruptive in the middle of class,
interrupting a lecture or breaking student concentration during a test. Cell phones don't
always simply make noise to inform of an incoming call; incoming text messages, low
battery alerts and alerts from applications can all make disruptive noise or produce disruptive
light.
- It can Provoke Theft
Reason : Allowing cell phones in schools invites the risk of theft. Many cell phones, and
especially smartphones, can be particularly appealing targets to criminals who can remove or
extract user data and then resell the phones. Keeping students phones out of the school
eliminates the risk of theft, and prevents the need for costly replacement of the phones. Let
seee a case in one of senior high school in Ajibarag district, female student stole her friends
smartphone when the class was empty.

- Cheating
Reason : With most smartphones featuring a fully featured Web browser, the potential for
cheating has grown exponentially. Clever students can subtly look up the answers to test
questions using search engines such as Google or online encyclopedias such as Wikipedia.
While careful monitoring often eliminates this issue, the potential for mischief is still
considerable.

- The radiation is very dangereous for our life


Majority of student bring their mobile phone in side their pocket, meanwhile the
cell phone have danger radiation, evenmore the school last for 6 hours,.

5.This house believes that smoking should be banned in public spaces


(+) Affirmative Team

1st speaker

As we know that smoking is an activity when someone burns a roll of tobacco in a paper
called cigarette and inhales the smoke of it. Its a small activity though, but it cause the death
of so much people in this world. Maybe we know through the school education and any
commercials that cigarette contains dangerous chemical substances such as tar and nicotine.
Indeed, its true. Even the truth is there are many other substances which are hazardous for
our body such as formalin, acetone, carbon monoxide, acetic acid, toluene, methanol, etc. We
can imagine if somebody smokes in a public space. The smoke doesnt only affect the
smoker, but also the people around. The condition where somebody inhales the smoke of a
smoker unconditionally is called passive smoking. However, you should know that
according to a study held by Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare & Bloomberg
Philanthropies in 2004-2010, there are 600.000 passive smokers in this world die. The death
is caused by lung cancer, heart attack, respiratory disorder, and asthma. This study is held in
192 countries with percentage of 40% men passive smokers and 30% are women and
children. Based on this case, we absolutely believe that smoking in public spaces should be
banned.

Instead, the reason why we believe with this motion is:

1. Smokers are taught to smoke less at home

Yes, because there are already bans of smoking in every public space, the only place for
the smokers to smoke is their own home. A ban, plus a punishment to pay an amount of
money, makes the smokers to think twice if they want to smoke at the place. However, if
they smoke at home, they also think about their familys member health. Therefore, they
cant smoke freely as before. In this case, though they dont want to, they have to
decrease their smoking intensity everywhere, and unconsciously their need of nicotine is
decreased, too, which is good for their blood and their own health.

2. A ban encourage smokers to smoke less or give up

A ban of smoking in public spaces persuades people to erase smoking activity in the
society. It causes the smokers to save their cigarette in order its impossible to stay out of
the society. Smokers are social person too, remember? And if they want to smoke and
arent able to control the desire meanwhile they are gathering with their friends, they
have to leave and smoke. Of course, it tends to create the awkward atmosphere of social
friendship. Cigarette is a small thing, and what will anyone think about you leaving
friends just for a small thing like cigarette? And surely, if they want their friends to stay,
they have to stop smoking.

Based on causes and effect of smoking by Hans jurgen on 1980

- Many people with the variety of ages in the public spaces as passive smoker and smoking is
very dangerous for passive smoker
Reason : Scientists agree that smoking is dangerous. Tobacco smoke can cause cancer,
strokes and heart disease. Smoking does not just harm the smoker it also harms people
nearby, who breathe in the smoke (this is called passive smoking). Smokers choose to
smoke, but people nearby do not choose to smoke passively. People should only be exposed
to harm if they understand the risks and choose to accept them. A complete ban on smoking
in public is needed to protect people from passive smoking.

-They lessen air pollution.


Supporters also say that states and cities which have non-smoking policies and prohibited
smoking in restaurants and public indoor spaces have better indoor air quality as opposed to
cities which still allow smoking public.

-They decrease the possibility of fires.


Smoking can increase the risks of fire in places with highly flammable materials. There have
been instances of fires which started from lit cigarettes. Moreover, accidents related to
explosions at work sites can also happen if smoking will not be prohibited.

- smoking increase the risk of pollution, global warming and disease in people .

People who smoke are more likely to develop diseases such as lung cancer and liver chirrosis.
Chirrosis is mostly caused by smoking and reduces and even poisons the liver, unable for the
organ to perfom its function, for example the healty ling is pinkish in colour and helps the
person breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon diokside. But a smokers lung is very dark and is
covered with tartar. A smokers lung is unable to functionally help person breathe and increase
severe astma with causes stroke and heart artiric.

- It harms every body

People shouldnt have the right to smoke whenever they want. What sort of
example are they giving to young children and infants ? Passive smoking kills so
many people, its not fair on other. Based on Sindonews megazine there are 13
milion/ year people died cause of smoking and there are 600 thousand/ year
people died cause passive smoking

- Smoking is very harmfull

First of all smoking is very bad for you it can cause disease like lung cancer ,
throat and mouth cancer. On estimate 150.000 people die from ling cancer each
year, 80-90% of that number get lung cancer from smoking . smoking not onl
cause disease it also reduce the capacity of blood, it is because they are takes
awaay the oxygen in your body so your body takes the oxygen from the blood.
There are also crazy amouts of chemicals in cigarets there are 400 other toxinc ,
including methane (sewer gas) amonia (toilet cleaner) tar, nicotine, arsenit (rat
poison) and many more.
- Bannings is a strong solution, taxing would be preferable
Although it would be complex, a tax on smoking in public would be better in that it could
increase tax receipts, while maintaining the freedom for smokers to do what they want, ehile
paying for the consequences. There must be a point at which society would be willing to
allow people to smoke in return. For tax revenue, if for example everty time someone smoked
public, they had to pay 1.000.000 toward universal medical care, or 500.000 toward
education, then i think that the society would be happy to allow a few die has smokers to
smoke when and where they pleased. As a pollice and practical matter. Something like this is
probably imposible and outright bans are more feasible, but ad a the oretical matter a tax is
almost always preferable.

(-) negative team

1st speaker

Ok, we know that smoking is an activity which is dangerous for everyone, both the smokers
and their surroundings from the chemical substances in the smoke itself. Thats why the
government thinks that its essential to ban smokers to smoke in the public spaces. However,
lets see the fact that actually this kind of ban is not effective to reduce the number of
smokers and even the passive smokers. Smokers choose to smoke in public spaces because
they have a habit to smoke directly in the place they are in, and its troublesome for them to
move to another place or even back to home or see for a toilet only to smoke. And its already
a habit too for the smokers to ignore any ban around. If they find a ban on smoking in the
place they are in, they tend to move only meters away from the place to another where they
dont find the ban and smoke there.

Besides, based on the data accumulated by Indonesian Foundation of Consumer Institution,


the most complaints of smoking activity is from the public spaces such as mall and there are
no harsh crackdown of such offenders. Moreover, the too complicated mechanism of
sanctions implementation in a ban causes the ineffective of the ban itself like requiring a
prosecutor to hold a court, and of course, it requires a lot of cost. So, thats why we dont
believe that smoking should be banned in public spaces. We also have several reasons why
we dont believe with this motion.

1. Passive smokers are not fully protected, actually.

Lets have a look at our reality. In many big towns like Jakarta or Bogor, they have the
local regulation to ban their people smoking in the public spaces, including public
transportation. However, there are still smoking areas inside a bus or in a mall with
ventilation. Meanwhile, if we want to have a healthy environment, we should do a
regulation like what Ireland country has done. Its banning tobacco activity everywhere.
Nevertheless, Indonesian tax revenues are highly paid from the tobacco. So, if the
government want to safe the passive smokers life, the government should ban tobacco
activity everywhere instead, not enough by banning people not to smoke in a public
place. The question is what can replace the high tax of the tobacco use?
2. People are able to move.

Yeah, if theres a person smoking in a public space, the smoker actually still aware of the
surroundings. So thats why smokers usually find a quiet place to smoke, because they
dont want anyone to interrupt their activity of smoking. Instead, if somebody doesnt
want to be a passive smoker, he/she can just move away if theres someone smoking
around. So, basically if anyone doesnt want to be a passive smoker, they can just stay
away or make distance from an active smoker.

3. We have to look from smokers side.

A smoker doesnt stop smoking only because of a ban. They are smoking to fulfill their
nicotine needs. They need a big motivation inside their soul to stop smoking. Meanwhile,
giving the smokers a ban to smoke in public spaces only tortures them, because they feel
their freedom is taken. In my opinion, if this country wants to reduce the number of
smokers and to create a healthy environment, the government should increase the tax or
educate the citizen instead.

- It is legal to smoke tobacco, so governments have no right to try to make people stop. It is
therefore wrong to argue that a ban on public smoking should be introduced to encourage
people to give up. Smokers fund their own healthcare through the high taxes they pay on
tobacco. In any case, heavy smokers are unlikely to give up since they are addicted to
nicotine.

- They take away freedom from people.


Some critics see smoking bans as a violation on ones personal liberty. They argue that people
should have the autonomy to decide on what kind of lifestyle they will have. Although they
are not totally against banning smoking, they say that it should be a personal choice.

- They can affect businesses.


Business owners who are not in favor of smoking bans as well as smokers who are used to
smoking in public places such as restaurants and coffee shops argue that restricting smoking
in these places can drive customers away and this can be harmful to businesses. And as for
establishments which are already smoke-free, competition will be higher. It will also be
harder for them to leverage since there will be more businesses that are smoke-free.

They result to lesser tax revenues for the government.


People against smoking bans are concerned on the effect on government
revenues if the push for smoke-free states will be implemented. They say that
the government earns from high taxes paid by tobacco manufacturers and
smokers. If cigarettes will be reduced, this would mean lesser taxes and lesser
revenue for the government
6. This House Believes That Mothers should stay at home and look after their kids

(+) Affirmative Team

1st speaker

Mothers are women who birth a child and have a responsibility to raise the child. Basically,
God has given women a sacred responsibility to be mothers because He doesnt give wombs
and mammal glands to men. Mothers birth a baby and give the baby milk so the baby can
grow up into a child. The strong bond between mothers and their children is important to
support the childrens growth both physically and psychologically.

Mothers should stay at home here means that mothers dont have to go outside their house or
leave their children in order to seek for a job and spend their whole time doing the
households things and looking after their children. Even though the family needs extra
income, mothers can seek for it without leaving home by opening grocery store, laundry,
convection, or online shopping. In this case, our team strongly believes with this motion.
Instead, we have several reasons to support our opinion.

1. Dont misinterpret the meaning of emancipation

We absolutely know that theres a woman emancipation. In Indonesia, the hero of women
emancipation is Raden Ajeng Kartini and Dewi Sartika. According to Indonesian Big
Book of Dictionary, emancipation means liberations from slavery, equality in various
aspects of community life. However, even from Islams or any religion aspects, even
though men are women are equal, but they have different roles in this life. Equality here
doesnt mean that mens obligations and roles are womens too. Also, theres a quotation
that women should have good education not to be a good employee, but to be a good
education source for their children. So, being a mother is womens basic role, but they
are out of slavery and in a same education level with men. This is what emancipation
really means.

2. Children needs mothers attendance for their development

Children needs somebody close to them to be asked about their confusion and their
curiosity. Children also needs somebody close to them to solve their social or emotional
problem. In this case, mothers are the only who can do these roles. By staying at home,
mothers are able to directly see their childrens needs and problems also solve them
together. It means that the role of being the first education source in family is completed.
Also, mothers can prevent their children from entering the wrong society by knowing
who their childrens friends are.

Moreover, according to fimela.com, Indonesian 3rd president, Mr. B.J. Habibie said that
womens presence as mothers is needed for the children to gain love, affection, and
security. Therefore, those 3 elements are important for the childrens subconscious so
that they are able to grow ideally.

3. Renting childcare is expensive and is a bad option

Mothers who work outside the house absolutely cant look after their kids or take care of
them. Because of that, they tend to rent a childcare. They may feel that their children are
safe because theres someone whos lookig after them. However, dont they think about
the conseqences they get by choosing this option? Renting childcare cost a big amount of
money, surely. The BBC has previously recorded that in the UK childcare options are
often unaffordable, and families with two working parents are often not much better off
than families with one working parent (October 2003). Secondly, the consequences
which Im sure that no parents want this to happen is theres a gap between mothers and
their children. Because the children spend their time mostly with the childcare, its
possible if they becomes closer with the childcare than with their own parents.

4.Mothers who work will be suffering in emotional control

A working mother will have harder burdens of life and shoul keep her family and her job in
balance. Her job will affect her emotion state when shes at home and vice versa. Badly, if
she isnt wise enough, the stressor she gets from her job can be brought to her households life
and shell be hard to pay attention to her children properly. Because of that, the children will
seek attention from other places that can bad for their emotional development.

Research by National Institute of Child Health and Development 1991, find that full-time
mothers are at times at greater risk for depression should not be taken lightly. Researchers
have found that infants are clearly impacted by their mothers depression. Infants of parents
with depression have been found to have difficulties with self-quieting, lower activity levels
and decreased ability to attend. Relative to the children of non-depressed parents, their affect
tends to be more negative, as typified by increased likelihood of expressing sadness and
anger.

Equally important are the studies on the role of chronic stress in parenting.

Powerless parents are more likely to:

be hyper-vigilant with their child;


focus on the negative, while ignoring improved behavior;
engage in coercive and punitive parenting;
misread neutral child cues as malevolent, and
derogate child in efforts at power repair
The implications of this body of research are that high stress levels, and particularly
depression in stressed-out parents, can have long term implications on child development.
The community needs to take this into account when prioritizing the need to provide young
parents with support.

5. couples of conflict will occured if mothers are going to work

Baed on vemale says that. If both of the parents are working, it can cause a conflict between
the mother and the father. The conflict can be caused by the different fees or the lack of
gathering time in family. Besides, the children will be out of control. The lack of the parents
care will suffer the childrens confidence in society, makes them feeling insecured, and
trapped them into risk of drugs abuse because of wrong friendship. The works of many other
researchers (Carlson & Kacmar 2000, Frone & Yardley 1996) have also found that a variety
of antecedents including role ambiguity, role conflict, time demands and involvement in both
the work and family domains are directly and positively related to work-family conflict.
There are 33 percent faced obstacles in achieving the desired harmony.

6. Stay-at-home parents make their kids smarter.

Stay-at-home parents make their older kids smarter, according to a study from the Statistics
Norway Research Department.

The study looked at the effects of Norways Cash for Care program which gave money to
parents who wanted to care for and educate their children at home, rather than send them to
early education and how the beneficiaries children did later on in school compared to
those who did not receive money from the program. The study ultimately found that children
whose parents did the Cash for Care program so, staying at home and raising their
children got better test scores and better GPA averages than those who didnt.

Those same stay-at-home parents are often sources of counsel and insight for their children
when they grow older, too, the study said.

The results suggest that even older students in middle or elementary school could use
guidance from their parents, Eric Bettinger, the studys researcher, told Quartz. For years,
we have known that parental presence is extraordinarily important in the very early childhood
years. What were finding is that parents continue to be important much further along in a
childs life than we had previously thought.
Well, its undeniable if a family needs more money to fulfill their needs such as education,
emergency leaves, food, supplies, etc. However, if the mother is really needed to work, they
dont have to go out of their home and leave their children. This is a digital era, we can use
the internet for business, so I think mothers can do businesses such as selling clothes or food
through the digital world. There are so many websites which can help everyone to do this
kind of business, and they can keep paying attention to their children wholy.

(-) Negative team

1st speaker

Ok, we see that mothers are those who birth their child and are responsible for raising the
child by giving them milk. In the past time, mothers are staying at home and responsible for
raising child and doing the households, while fathers are going outside to work. However,
today is already a new era, where everything is advanced in technology. In this era too, were
facing the tremendous price tag of stuffs we need in the households such as foods, furniture,
health insurance, and even for the education. If a family only depends on the fathers income,
sometimes it isnt affordable. So, frankly I dont think its good if mothers only stay at home
and look after their kids while fathers are working hard, breaking their hands and feet to get
the family income. By seeking a job, at least mothers can lighten the fathers burden in their
obligation. Evenmore, the family is able to have extra money for the savings so they can use
it in the future for their kids education or to be used for any urgent things.

Because of that, our team strongly against this motion. Thus, let me deliver you our reason
which support our argument.

1. A working mother gives good examples for the children

A mother who is used to work outside when she was young are rarely accepting her
role as a household mother. Surely, this condition induce the risk of depression and
bad impacts for the children during the household life. In contrary, a working mother
who has good prestige and satisfaction in her career are able to give good example for
the kid. The kids are inspired to achieve their ambitions and dreams.

Furthermore, although mother cannot stay with the children wholy, its beneficial for
the children to build their independence. They learn that they cannot depend on other
people forever, just like they cant ask their mother to help them in everything.
Moreover, they are prepared to face the real life and it makes them being responsible
in the future.

2. There has been women emancipation

Well, it has been mothers responsibility to take care of the children more than fathers.
However, lets face the reality were in now. In this modern era, its not enough to rest
on fathers income only. Women, including mothers, have right to work inside or
outside the house. Mothers are able to work helping the fathers in the rice field, or
selling foods, vegetables, and beverages in the market, or working in a company. How
can I say this? Its because we already know about women emancipation.
Emancipation means equality in every aspect of social living. So, talking about
equality and women emancipation, its undeniable that mothers also have right to
work outside. Moreover, a working mother can give an example for the daughter that
she can achieve her goals though shes a woman.

Based on research studies from 1988 to 2012 by Kerris Cooper and Kitty Stewart, Centre for
Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics and Political Science..

4. children can have better life from their parents money

The money collected by both father and mother can be used to give their children better life
quality. Their children can go to the best school in the regency, achieve their doctoral study
and have a prosperity life.

Evidence abounds that children in lower-income households do less well than their peers on
many outcomes, including in health and education. But is money itself important, or do these
associations reflect other household differences, such as parental education levels or attitudes
toward parenting? This study reviewed the evidence, focusing on research investigating
whether money is the cause of these differences in childrens outcomes.

This review identified 34 studies with strong evidence about whether money affects
childrens outcomes. Children in lower-income families have worse cognitive, social-
behavioural and health outcomes in part because they are poorer, not just because low income
is correlated with other household and parental characteristics.

The evidence was strongest for cognitive development and school achievement, followed by
social-behavioural development. Income also affects outcomes indirectly impacting on
children, including maternal mental health, parenting and home environment.

The impact of increases in income on cognitive development appears roughly comparable


with that of spending similar amounts on school or early education programmes. Increasing
household income could substantially reduce differences in schooling outcomes, while also
improving wider aspects of childrens well-being.
A given sum of money makes significantly more difference to children in low-income than
better-off households (but still helps better-off children).

Money in early childhood makes most difference to cognitive outcomes, while in later
childhood and adolescence it makes more difference to social and behavioural outcomes.

Longer-term poverty affects childrens outcomes more severely than short-term poverty.

Although many studies were from the US, the mechanisms through which money appears to
affect childrens outcomes, including parental stress, anxiety and material deprivation, are
equally relevant in the UK.

5. a working mother would be able to stand alone if they are divorced or the father is dead

In a family, the mother and her children cant depend on the father forever. Nobody knows
when the father dies. Thats why, a mother should go to work so she can fulfill the family
needs with her effort and wont struggle the family. Through work, a mother will learn how to
be strong and independent.

6. Today every woman wants to be independent. No woman wants to depend on any one else
for satisying her needs and desires. So if a mother wants to earn her own bread then why not?
By this, men will also come to know that they are only not suffering for the family.
Nowadays men think that they are doing so much for the family and also under estimate
women that they are only meant for taking care of the family. But hands are not only for
applying mehendi. Every woman should go to work and evolve a new revoultion of women
who work. The well known actress Smriti Z is known for multi tasking. She is a working
woman but at the same time she gives quality time to her family which is really great. But
going to work doesn't mean that women should forget their family. A woman should play
both the roles of a successful working woman and also that of a wife, a daughter in law and
also of a mother intelligently.

7. This House Would reduce the usage of plastic bags for food and beverage

(+) Affirmative Team

1st speaker

Nowadays, we see that to maintain the all-quick lifestyle in this modern era, people uses
plastic bags to bring things in their hands like foods, drugs, and many miscellanous things.
Its undeniable that plastic bags are effective enough to be used than paper bag or fabric bags
because they are durable and waterproof. Many people thinks that using plastic bags is safe
enough as their food container. However, according to Indonesian Drugs and Foods Audit
Agency, plastic bags, especially the black ones, are made from recycled plastics which the
sources and the histories are unknown. And often during the production progress, the maker
added ingredients such as antioxidants and colorant. In that case, the usage history can be
from pesticides, hospital waste, humans/animals feces, or heavy metal waste. Plus the
antioxidants and colorant added, it makes the foods and beverages contaminated by toxics
and so many dangerous chemical contained which can destroy all the body system.

Based on that case, we strongly agree that we should reduce the usage of plastic bags for
foods and beverages. Instead of its dangerous for the food and the body, there are still so
many things we found as reasons to support our argument. And mostly, they are linked with
the great awful effect for the environment.

1. Plastic bags has been worldwide waste problem

Talking about this reason, we pick a study result reported on March 2016 in San Jose,
California headed by an environmental technic professor of University of Georgia.
Adapted from VOA Indonesia, about 8, 8 million tons plastic is ended up thrown into
the sea all over the world. And terribly, the half of the total plastic trash is sourced
from China, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka. From this study, we see
that our country is in the second place in volunteering the plastic bags waste in the
sea. So, I think its necessary to reduce the plastic bags usage, not only for food and
beverages, but for everything.

2. Plastic bags are not biodegradable

Plastic bags are made from petroleum, a source which isnt renewable. The chemical
bonds in the plastic bags are inorganic and the microorganisms inside the soil need a
very long time to decompose that inorganic bonds. Not in ten years or ninety years,
but up to a hundred years. Besides, the inorganic bonds are very hazardous to the
nutrients in the soil, ruining the pH of the water, and also killing the decomposer.

3. Plastic bags also pose a serious danger to birds and marine mammals that often
mistake them for food.

Floating plastic bags regularly fool sea turtles into thinking they are one of their
favorite prey, jellyfish. A new review paper published in Conservation Biology in
February 2014 reports on the extent of the problem of plastic ingestion for sea turtles.
The authors reviewed the literature on sea turtle feeding observations and stomach
contents. They found that the probability of plastic ingestion has been increasing
between 1985 and 2012. It was estimated at 50% for green turtles. When source of
mortality was examined, between 2 and 17% of turtles were killed from ingesting
debris.
1. Producing plastic bags, transporting them to stores, and bringing the used ones to landfills
and recycling facilities require millions of gallons of petroleum, a non-renewable resource
which can arguably better used for more beneficial activities like transportation or heating.
The majority of plastic bags are not recycled and instead sit in landfills, whereas the
alternative is better for the environment and economy.
There are so few plastic bags that are actually recycled and turned into usable products. Most
are tossed into the garbage and will sit in landfills slowly breaking down and taking up space.
The alternative of fabric bags are a reusable option that are better on the environment.
Grocery stores can reduce their costs by selling reusable bags and not spending the money on
producing plastic bags. They will also be providing a service to the environment.

2. plastic has very adverse effect on the environment. As we know that is a non biodegradable
waste , it can not be decomposed by bacteria in the soil. plastic bag is an environmental
hazard, but it occupies a very important place in our live. people find very easy and
convenient for their use but they never think of their adverse effects. from out side it looks
harmless . thinner plastic bags are more harmful. if we burn them , plastic bags will produce
harmful gases. Plastic bags are also harmful for animals .Because when animals consume it
can die. at last i want to say we should use paper bags instead of plastic bags to save our
environment.

3. This month, San Diego took a step toward banning the use of plastic bags in grocery stores
and other retail outlets. Nearly 80 cities in California have already instituted similar bans, and
cities and counties nationwide, from Dallas to Madison, Wis., are steeped in debate over the
merits of the sweeping measures.
Supporters say plastic bags are an unnecessary environmental menace and that banning them
is the best way to curb plastic bag litter, especially in waterways.

4. Approximately 100 billion plastic shopping bags are used per year in the U.S., though only 1
to 2 percent end up getting recycled.
Proponents of plastic bag bans often point to the prevalence of plastic bag debris in oceans,
including the famed Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
Researchers from the University of Arizona and Loma Linda University in California found
that 97 percent of reusable bag users surveyed heading into Arizona and California grocery
stores have never washed their bags.
Eighty-three of 84 bags examined in the same study tested positive for significant amounts of
bacteria. Half had coliform bacteria from raw meat or uncooked food contamination, and 12
percent contained E. coli.
The study did indicate that machine- or hand-washing reusable bags all but eliminated any
traces of bacteria and recommended that proper care instructions be printed inside all bags or
reinforced through public service announcements.

8. By banning plastic bags, not only will we reudce all the environmental issues such as
animals, litter and landfill, we will also spread awareness globally and even potentially
nationally. For example, say Australia bans plastic bags, in a couple of years time, all these
issues would be on their way to being resolved and America's government might think "Wow,
we didn't realise this was such a big issue! And look, 5 years ago Australias landfill was
overflowing with plastic bags that do not break down and now the small perentage of cloth
bags that do go in landfill (not many go in because cloth bags are so reusable) are gone very
quickly because they break down into what is not unhealthy for the environment! Maybe we
should ban plastic bags too so we can recieve such a great effect!" And the England may
copy, the France and Japan and China and Brazil etc etc. Do you see what I mean. People
realise it is a big enough issue to make a law and see this great effect and actually CARE!

(-) Negative Team

Based on The Guardian by Isabelle Chevallot, 12 May 2007

4. Plastic bags are reusable for a variety of purposes, with many people using them as
trash can liners or to pack and store miscellaneous items. Plastic bags last considerably
longer than plastic bags and be rinsed out and repurposed, unlike paper bags.

5. Re-useable bags may sound ideal. However, do people actually remember to bring
them shopping each time they go? If they do not, what happens is that they have to buy
more re-useable bags which means that more plastic is being used. Yes, the idea is that
they are not disposable and so do not fill our dumpster, but the reality is, after a few
times of forgetting to bring your reuseable bags, you will have accumulated many of
them. Eventually, you people will throw them away, just like they did with plastic bags.
A ban on plastic bags seems like an unwarranted inconvenience when you look at the
long term consequences.

6. Bag Tax - an Alternative to Bag Bans


An alternative to banning plastic bags is the introduction of a bag tax. Ireland
introduced a bag tax and has reported a reduction in the use of plastic bags by 90%.
Charging for plastic bags helps to give a focus as to whether a plastic bag is entirely
necessary.

7. causes loss of jobs


I sometimes forget that the protection of plastic bag manufacturers is more important
than attempting to clean the planet we live on. I forget that, so long as the workers in
the plastic bag industry are ok, we will not suffer any environmental damage.
Economic conditions should not impact upon the manner in which we address a
problem that is contributing to the destruction of our planet. To believe that the
livelihoods of a few workers is more important than preventing environmental damage
is a ludacrous sentiment that deserves significant criticism.
The production of plastic bags is a big industry. There are factories which produce the
bags and distribute them. Let us not forget that these factories may cause poolution, but
they also have a vast amount of staff policing the production. In the time of a recession
we should not be looking to thwart thriving industries but save them. Factory workers
are finding it increasingly difficult to get work in this day and age and the ban of
plastic bag distribution would only make their plight for employment even tougher.

5. plastic bags have its advantage to the environmental, too.

There are several important ecological advantages of plastic grocery bags over paper
shopping bags. Because they weigh so much less, they contribute far less solid waste to
landfills when not recycled. According to the EPA, paper bag production requires 40
percent more energy than the production of plastic bags. Paper bag manufacturing also
results in 50 percent more water pollution and 70 percent more air pollution than
plastic bag manufacturing.

So, if this house will reduce the usage of paper bags, they have to think once again
about the economic side and the lifestyle of the citizen.

5. THBT sex education should be given earlier to junior high school students

1st speaker

Junior high school students are students with ages around 12 up to 15 years, and we call them
as adolescent boys and girls. Usually, people in this age have their first time of puberty such
as menstruation for girls and nocturnal erection for boys. This means that their sexual organs
are activated, when girls produce ovum and boys produce sperms. In this period too, there are
many secondary sexual signs appear. Their voice goes deeper or softener, the Adams apple in
boys neck is growingjust like the mammal glands in girls, and there are soft hairs around
their armpit and their genital organ.

Due to this condition, its necessary for the school to give the sex education to the students.
Even though theres a chapter in science lesson learning about reproduction organs, students
still need more education about it. So, because of this case, were absolutely believed that sex
education should be given earlier to junior high school students. Moreover, we have reasons
why the sexual education is the right thing to do.
1. Adolescents boys and girls wont be shocked with their physical and hormonal
changes.

When adolescent boys and girls are entering their puberty, the hormonal changes
inside their body will affect their physical appearance. In boys, their voice becomes
deeper, the Adams apple is shown in their neck, moustaches and beards grow in their
faces (also hair in their armpit and around their genital, also occurred in girls).
Meanwhile in girls, their voices become softener, their mammal glands grow, there
are fat around their waist, etc. Through the education, they learn that these changes
are normal so that they arent going to explore it to answer their curiosity; also they
tend to be warned not to use these changes as a mocking object in somebody.

2. Its necessary to prevent the sexual abuse between teenagers

According to Childline.org, sexual abuse is when a child or young person is


pressurized, forced, tricked or coerced into taking part in any kind of sexual activity
with an adult or another young person. This can include kissing, touching the young
person's genitals (private parts) or breasts, intercourse or oral sex.

Lately, the number of sexual abuse between teenagers in Indonesia is alarming.


According to republika.co.id, in 2014 there are 35 cases of women abuse, and its
including the sexual abuse in teenage girls. And about the Sodom case, we can have a
look at the case in West Java, Indonesia. There was a case in 2014 which an adult man
did the sexual abuse to more than 100 boys! Because of that, through the sexual
education, teenagers may learn the sensitive part of them which are forbidden to be
touched, know kinds of sexual abuse in society and know how to protect themselves
from the sexual abuse.

Sexual health education interventions for young people, 1995 and Sex Education Will Help
Gay Children, 2009

(+) Affirmative Team

3.the teenagers can be avoided from the sexually transmitted diseases or


infections

Reason:

- Through the education, teachers can teach the students about STD and
STI, the danger of them, how they are transmitted and how to avoid from
them. So that they may think twice if they want to do the sexual activity.
- Teenagers have to be taught about the responsibility if they want to be
sexually active.

- Teenagers have to be avoided from LGBT, to know that they are created in
pair, male and female.

4. Children should be given complete sex education in schools, according


to what is appropriate for their age; it will prepare them properly for
realities in life and protect them.

It has been clearly demonstrated that kids who are taught abstinence only
are more likely to get STDs and have abortions. In order to prepare young
people for their own sexual development and urges and how to deal with
the sexual advances of the people in their lives they must be educated in
a matter of fact way and instructed how to protect and prepare
themselves. Abstinence only education results in ignorant, not innocent
kids and adults.

5. Education is a prime source of knowledge

Stopping children from exploring the normal is ridiculous. Closing their


minds and filling them with misleading information and brain washing
them to believe that sex before marriage is bad is unacceptable. It is more
important they know about safe sex ,STD'S, puberty and the reproductive
system. Open their minds and educate them properly. Let them make
decisions and find what's right for them.

7. If they are old enough to know what their body is going through when it
hits puberty, why not teach them why its doing that. Teaching kids about
sex should go hand and hand with puberty. Giving them a heads up on
things such as STDs and teen pregnancy could lead to a decrease in teen
pregnancy. The schools should have a permission slip drawn up for kids to
take home and have the parents have the final say. If they dont sign it,
then it should fall onto the parents to tell the kids what it is. If not then
they have no room to complain if their 10 year old is having sex or their
12 year old is pregnant. It is their fault for not informing and taking
preventative measures.

(-) Negative Team

1st speaker
According to Wikipedia, sex education is instruction on issues relating to human sexuality,
including emotional relations and responsibilities, human sexual anatomy, sexual activity,
sexual reproduction, reproductive health, reproductive rights, safe sex, birth control and
sexual abstinence.

From the definition only, we see that sex education is majorly teaching about the sexual
activity. However, according to the motion were talking right now, we see that the target of
the sex education is junior high school students. Meanwhile, junior high school students are
commonly having their first puberty, and their sexual organs are not matured enough. How
can the teachers teach their student about, for example, safe sex if in the reality they arent
able to do that and are forbidden to do so based on moral customs? Its obviously too early to
give this education to junior high school students, because basically they arent able to
acknowledge it mostly, especially practically. This is why our team cant agree with this
motion. Instead, we have several reasons to support our argument.

1. Sex can develop naturally without should be taught.

According to an interview with ex Indonesian head of education ministry, M Nuh


through antaranews.com, he said that sex education doesnt have to be school
curriculum because sex can exist and develop naturally without should be taught. He
also added that the societies will get the knowledge about sex with nobody teach them
and that the spread of many artists pornography video is a private thing which isnt
inappropriate to be published.

2. They arent able enough to divide which one is right and which one is wrong.

Sex in a narrow sense is a label of gender, meanwhile in abroad sense is often called
as sexuality where its not only concerning about gender label but the whole
difference aspects between male and female physically, biologically, psychologically,
and socially which is related to humans (Thontowi, 2002: 2)

Sex itself can be viewed as 2 sides. Sex can be a right thing if humans get it through
marriage, where they can do it with their partner. However, sex can be a bad thing if
humans get it through the illegal way such as masturbation and watching
pornographies. And sadly, once students know about this, they wont get enough for
sure, because sex itself is a hidden biological need. It will be dangerous for them if
they know about it earlier.
Teenage Sex, 2003

3. How do we know that all children are ready to hear/see sex? This
introduction may be enticing and put thoughts in a child's head that they
either are not ready for or would never have contemplated for a few more
years.

I wouldn't tell a primary age young person the safest ways of taking illegal
drugs, or point them to the best drug pusher selling pure illegal drugs. Sex
is made to look like the be all and end all, when it is not.

Sure teach about the changes in body and reproduction , but why is
anything else necessary? Why does a 12 year old need to be shown how
to use a condom, if having sex at 12 is illegal? This is a mix message.
Children are now more and more seeing underage sex as the norm ,
because they are given contraception including dangerous morning after
pill and can have abortions without the support of their parents.

4. the teenagers brain will be contaminated with sex

Reason:

1. because of the teenagers curiosity, theyll learn about sex everywhere,


and it cant be avoided that they may learn from the pornography

2. according to camryen walker, an author in covenanteyes.com,


pornography would make teenagers addicted because it can induce the
brain to produce dopamine. Besides, it will affect the long term memory
that teenagers will be affected in way of thinking in such a way that he or she will
consistently look for the same kind of experience from others. This can be devastating in the
long run. And to the worse thing, pornography will lead the teenagers to have a attention
deficit disorder, which means he or she keeps on looking for satisfaction instead of focusing
on more mundane, everyday things.

5. Do you believe that a student in the 5th grade has the ability to understand the meaning of
the word sex and also the many types of definition it has? No they don't know and shouldn't
know either I believe in 2014 kids in fifth grade should be taught about the religious way or
how morally all people should live by and wait until marriage. When you teach a kid a topic
about this believe or not his/her mind will start to think that the teachers are wanting them to
go out there and have sex with someone. But when you leave that topic to the parents they
will be taught the way the parent believes their child should be taught about sex and i believe
as any parent out there would not like any school to teach them how to put a condom on,
when to take birth control and most of all the different positions and ways a man and a
women can have sex. Resource say: why should school teach sex when they should be
teaching abstinence because teaching about sex in other words for them is to do it and we
should teach them to be against sex until marriage.

6. With the heavy use of porn by boys and girls nowadays, most teenagers are already
aware of what sex is and how it works. There why do we need a class on it? If someone
wants to know how to put a condom on go on youtube, it would be a lot less awkward than
talking to your teacher!
Motion 10: This HW erase death penalty in Indonesian Law

(+)

1st speaker

Death penalty or execution is government sanctioned punishment by death. The sentence is


referred to as a death sentence. Crimes that can result in a death penalty are known as capital
crimes or capital offences. There are methods for the executor to hold this penalty such as
lethal injection, electrocution, gas chamber, firing squad, and hanging. A person who supports
the death penalty has opinion that it gives the deterrent effect for the criminal and justice for
the victims. Also, people also think that death penalty is effective to stop the criminal with
wide-ranged crime victims.

However, in fact, there are only 68 countries in this world, including Indonesia, which
conduct the death penalty. 129 countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Philippines
etc. have abolished the death penalty. It is because scientific studies are consistently failed to
show that death penalty brings the deterrent effect and is effective than any other type of
punishments. In Indonesia itself, death penalty is given to those who do drug trafficking,
politic crime, terrorism, and planned murder. Maybe we still remember the death penalty
given to the 2 Australian men in 2015 because drug trafficking. Meanwhile, according to
international law expert of ANU, Don Rothwell through the legal advice for Indonesia
government, the death penalty given to the men breaches international law, because drug
trafficking is not recognized as the most serious crimes in global. So, our team definitely
agrees that death penalty should be erased from Indonesian law. Simply, why should we do
things that mostly people doesnt do? Instead, we have several thoughts why we agree with
this motion.

1. Death penalty is used to be shown as feudalism

Lets look back to our history about death penalty in Indonesia. Actually in the
imperialism era, Indonesia had done the death penalty to who were against the
colonial rule at that time. So many Indonesian heroes like (tell them) were killed
during this time with so inhumane ways. And after Indonesia had its liberation, death
penalty was still occurred to punish them who did the political crime. Around 1960s,
death penalty was given to all of Communist party without a court and it brought so
many victims, proved or not. And then were going nearer to the millennium era,
death penalty has been used to punish the criminal with terrorism, planned murder,
and drug trafficking.

From the history, we can conclude that actually Indonesian government does the death
penalty based on the regime necessity. Its used to show the regimes existence only,
not pure to do the justice for the country. Well, we see that drug trafficking is a serious
crime, but this country also has another more serious one. It is corruption.
Meanwhile, until now, theres no death penalty for the corruptors in this country
though they have burdened citizen for their own joy, unlike China who has the
regulation for it and consistently do it. Furthermore, most of the corruptors are from
the parliamentary chairs.

2. Nothing is perfect in this world, including laws.

How can the judge judge the criminal? What if the proves are wrong and they punish
a wrong person? Theres nothing can guarantee that we, as the judge, have punished a
right criminal. And when we realize if were already kill a wrong person, its already
too late.

Вам также может понравиться