Hengki Agus Rifa’i

Accept the problem, say SQ is in the trend to

1
overcoming it.
Accept the problem, accept that there is no
2 working solution, but say whatever gov doing will
make the problem worse than not doing
anything.

Accept the problem, but offer a different solution

3 (proposal).

4 Saying there is no problem at all.

THBT university Presidents should be legally responsible for
sexual crimes caused by faculty members upon students

Gov “We’d like to imprison the Presidents for their

negligence because they are responsible to it
and we can create better education system to
prevent further sexual crimes to take place.

We agree that the problem exist, but we think

Opp there has been an ongoing solution to deal with
it; that is, there have been policies firing the
employees, lecturers and faculty staffs, who
commit the sexual crimes. We should not take the
step further of criminalizing Presidents because
they have no control over the crimes.
 THBT government should increase the quality of
education rather than providing it for free
“We think it’s time to shift our education goal on
Gov the quality because we think in the 21st century,
we need more qualified human resources to build
our country and make us a more competitive
country.
We agree that we still have problem on the
Opp quality of our HR, and their proposal may bring
something good, but we think this will
consequently lead to bigger problem, that is: we
are unable to ensure that all individuals will have
access to education which is the basic HR and
duty of government to provide it.
 THBT ban smoking

Gov “Thousands and thousands of our people die as a

result of smoking. We can’t wait any longer to
protect our people from the disaster brought by
cigarette.

We agree to some extent that some of our

Opp people got diseases from smoking, and we need
to do something about it, but we have different
solution to this problem: imposing sin tax on
cigarette. This will make sure that people will be
less likely to take cigarette but still also ensure
people’s right to smoke.
 THBT government officials should be native person

“We want our governance to be occupied by

Gov people who really understand us, our need, and
bring positive changes. A lot of policies of
government today don’t work because they are
not our people. They are not native.
We don’t agree to the idea that non-native
Opp people are unable to govern and native people
will absolutely be able to understand us. We deny
this problem brought by government. If it’s really
the case that native people will understand us,
then how come native governor such as Agusrin
Najamudin (Bengkulu) even become corrupted?
The key is: WHY, WHY, WHY, and So What
 All news media should become non-profit so that
Gov
people can access it for free. Also, we think news
media can’t do their two duties: to inform people
and to make profit at the same time.

BoP 1. Why should news be made free?

2. Why can’t news media do the duties at the

same time?

3. What is the benefit of forcing them to be non-

profit ?
 We want to ban people from taking deadly
Gov
cigarette because we think it is our responsibility
of the government to protect our citizens from
making harmful choice.

BoP 1. Why is cigarette dangerous?

2. Why do government has a right/authority to

stop citizens from smoking, even if it’s harmful?

3. What other benefits could possibly be

achieved from this ban?
Gov We want Google to notify us if such cases
happen because we think suicide is a really big
problem in the SQ, and we all should take active
stance in preventing that thing to take place.

1. What is the inherent dangers of suicide? Why

BoP
should we prevent as it’s people right to die?

2. Why should we take active stance as a

government in this case?

3. What does this policy possibly lead to?

1. Before the debate (when the motion is announced –
inherent BoPs in a motion)

2. During the debate (when your opponent say

something new in their speeches)
Opp We don’t think that making them non-profit is a
good thing because it will undermine their efforts
to work hard in covering news and their level of
independence as a media.

BoP 1. Is it really it will undermine their efforts? If so,

why is such case is still a good tradeoff in
comparison to your proposal’s benefits?

2. Is it really it will undermine their independence?

If so, can your proposal also ensure
independence to some extent? If not, why is still
not really a big problem?
Opp We think individuals should be allowed to consent
to harm, because that is their decision which
makes them happy. It’s their consensual choice.

BoP 1. Is it really that people consent to harm and are

making consensual decision when they take up
smoking?

2. If it is so, why should we still can’t let them to do

so (smoking)?
Opp We think government should not interfere to the
privacy of the individuals, even if it might actively
harm someone because we think privacy is very
important and we stand on that thing today.

BoP 1. Is it really that privacy is important?

2. If it is really so, are there other previous

instances where we violate privacy in order to do
save someone/do something good?