Adjudication Test ToT on Debate 2018

19 responses
Name19 responses
AlauddinAsni meutiaraDra. Sri Hartati…Jannah AnsarMuhammad Arif…NI LUH MADE M…
NonaTesUmmi Novay…0121 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1
(5.3%)2 (10.5%)2 (10.5%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1
(5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1
(5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)
Value Count
Alauddin 1
Alex Arpandi 1
Asni meutiara 1
Brigitta Gun Rinanti 1
Dra. Sri Hartati Murhadini 2
ERIDAFITHRI 1
Jannah Ansar 1
Linawati, S.Pd 1
Muhammad Arif Yusuf 1
Muhammad Nazaruddin 1
NI LUH MADE MERRIYANTHI ASMI, SS.M.Pd 1
NI LUH MADE MERRIYANTHI ASMI,SS.M.Pd 1
Nona 1
Reti Sudarsih, S. Pd 1
Tes 1
Tutik Ambarwati 1
Ummi Novayanti Purba 1
Wesiati Setyaningsih 1
School19 responses
SMA N 1 WATESSMA NEGERI 1…SMA Negeri 1 Ti…SMA Negeri 3 P…SMAN 1
CilegonSMAN 1 PANGKEPSMAN 1 TANJU…SMAN 2 KS CIL…SMAN 2 Tido…0121
(5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)2 (10.5%)2 (10.5%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1
(5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1
(5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1
(5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)
Value Count
SMA N 1 WATES 1
SMA N 1 Wonosari 1
SMA NEGERI 1 SEMARAPURA 2
SMA NEGERI 10 FAJAR HARAPAN BANDA ACEH 1
SMA Negeri 1 Tidore Kepulauan 1
SMA Negeri 2 Medan 1
SMA Negeri 3 Pangkalpinang 1
SMA Negeri 9 Semarang 1
 Value Count
SMAN 1 Cilegon 1
SMAN 1 Mandastana 1
SMAN 1 PANGKEP 1
SMAN 1 Polewali 1
SMAN 1 TANJUNGPINANG 1
SMAN 17 Bandar Lampung 1
SMAN 2 KS CILEGON 1
SMAN 2 KS CILEGON 1
SMAN 2 Tidore Kepulauan 1
Tes 1
Province19 responses
ACEHBANTEND. I. YogyakartaJawa TengahKepulauan Bang…LampungMaluku
utaraSulawesi BaratTed0121 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)2 (10.5%)2 (10.5%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)2 (10.5%)2
(10.5%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1
(5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1
(5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)1 (5.3%)
Value Count
ACEH 1
BALI 2
BANTEN 1
Banten 2
D. I. Yogyakarta 1
D.I.Yogyakarta 1
Jawa Tengah 1
Kalimantan Selatan 1
Kepulauan Bangka Belitung 1
Kepulauan Riau 1
Lampung 1
Maluku Utara 1
Maluku utara 1
South Sulawesi 1
Sulawesi Barat 1
Sumatera Utara 1
Ted 1
1. In a debate with a motion THW Ban all prisoners from voting, what will you propose as a
member of Proposition team?19 responses
Election is one of the way to determine how something or someone is chosen and people have a
right to elect based on what or who they belive to be something elected. For the motion, we have
to give the definition first. Prisoner is a person legally held in prison as punishment for crimes he
has commited or while awaiting a trial. The crime prisoners have commited here such as
political, corruption, hate speech, religion shaming voting is giving vote in political election Ban
is prohibit the prisoners in giving the right to vote in political election As the crime they have
comitted, the prisoners who are proved guilty by law, can tend to be bias on one side of the party
without considering the quality of the party, what is the goal of the party, wheter it really want to
make a region or a country to better or not. They will tend to choose the party who will support
them , the one who will give the benefit, and support them when they are released from the jail.
from the side of the party, what kind of party who will campaign and see the prisoner as the
target? the prisoner and the political party can have simbiosis mutualism to give advanteges for
each other. the prisoner will not have a deterent effect if they are given a right to vote in political
election since they will have supporters for their crimes, they will have back up who said what
they did were right. so how can we trust people like that? how can we trust the fiture of a region
or even a country in a hand of people like that? a people who create a suffer for a country.
As the 1st speaker of the proposition team, we will define the prisoners as the persons over 17
years old who do assasination and get hard punishment from court. The parameter is in
Indonesia.
Tes
prisoners are referred to those who consciously commit crime and conduct infringement. it is
very obvious that they have mental deterioration which leads them to positive attitude failure.
regarding this I totally agree that prisoners should not be given any right to vote, in this case I
would set the parameter as voting for the presidential election. they have no right to vote because
of some reasons; criminals are against law, they might be under control of other people, and they
have inadequate knowledge about the person he would vote for. in some countries criminals are
not allowed to vote due to felony conviction. as this is social problem it may give bad impact to
society through their vote. In addition, as the can be under control of particular mafia, he will be
repressed in certain condition and give their vote under threat, which means the their voices have
flaw. Finally, as the felon are kept and isolated in jail they would not have sufficient information
about the person they would give their voice. They might have elected the wrong person.
First, I will define the definition of 'ban', 'prisoners', and 'voting'. This is to make clear that we
are talking on the same path. By defining ban as prevent or not let someone to use his political
rights, prisoners which means those who are found guilty in court, and voting as the act of giving
contribution in political right will make our motion clearer. Second, I will talk about the
reasons/facts/arguments of not let all the prisoners to give their votes. This is important to make
sure that the ideas of not letting prisoners to vote is not imaginary or just an idea, but with some
logical, explainable facts. And third, I am going to propose the condition which may happen if
all prisoners give their votes, the effects of the community, the thoughts of people, the
democracy, and things which are considered important to support our motion.
A prisoner is a person who committed crime and give harm or loss to other person or state. Being
in prison means that he lost all his right as a citizen as a part of deterrent effect for him. Voting is
right for citizens, so prisoners should not vote because he doesn't have right as citizen anymore.
A person can only be given the rights of member when they are responsible as the member of
society. While being in rehabilitation should focus on making prisoners realize and regrets the
effect of their action. So prisoners should not vote.
As Proposition team I propose to do so due to treat them in making the same crime
TH proposes that people whose liberty are taken by the law and kept under involuntary restraint
or prison because of breaking - law action they did should not be given a right to vote on general
election.
I would give a limitation on the motion, first prisoners, who are the prisoners, the prisoners here
are the persons who are put in a jail because of a very serious crime they have done such as
terrorist, drugs seller, and they are sentenced for more than 10 years in jail. We agree with this
motion as it is as the consequence of the criminal they have done. Actually they are not only
banned for voting but also are eradicated their human right to vote. because as you see that
talking about voting means talking about amounts. and the amount of prisoners in Indonesia,
although not as big as in America, it influences the amount of voters. so there are many
politicians who try to attract the prisoners's sympathy so that they can get as many as voters they
can, even it can happen an agreement between a certain politician with many prisoners to make
the politician get more voters from prisoners. and when they have made an agreement....it means
there will be a new policy and that new policy will not suit the society need but only suit the
prisoners;s need. so that.s why we agree that the prisoners should be banned from voting.
Not allOwing them to voTe as long as they're prisoners will be viiew as punishment of Their
crimes. Not only that, people in imprisonment tends to be despearate which actualy can be used
by people with bad intentions.
I think, as the prisoners are those who committed crime or broke the rules so it is justifiable not
letting them to have a vote in an election why because this can be extra punishment for them so
that they will think twice before doing a crime.
As Proposition team i proposal the motion. Why prisoners shoulder be banned to vote because
psychologically prisoners are under stressed situation in which their voting Will not be logical.
Voting should be for those who have freedom while prisoners loose their freedom.
The prisoners are people who against the rule, the government's rule. The people who did
mistakes. So by banning them from voting is as one way to make them reconsider and realize
their mistake. They ever took other's right in security so they will also feel how if their rights are
taken.
As a preposition team I propose that as a prisoners they have lost all their right as a sitizen. they
should not get the chance to do it.
As first speaker of proposition team, We have to make a parameter, and definition/limitation: For
example the parameter is in Indonesia, and as a definition or limitation is a persons over
seventeen years old who do assasination such as murder and a prisoners who have a hard
punishment.
Prisoners are those who have violated rules and committed crimes. People become prisoners
through a formal and legal procedure. Therefore, they should take the consequences and all
prisoners should lose some freedom and rights no matter what crime they have committed. One
of them is losing the right to vote. But, what happens to the status quo? Some prisoners were still
given the right to vote and they even proudly showed us their happy and proud face after voting.
Seeing this thing keeps happening, we propose to ban all prisoners from voting. Why would we
do that? First, they are prisoners. They have committed crimes. They have violated others' right,
that's why they shouldn't been given their right as citizen as well as the right to vote. Second,
voting is a serious act that will give big impact for our nation. It is choosing a person to run and
lead this nation. How can we let the prisoners take part in this serious act? We shouldn't take a
risk by letting bad people to make someone run and lead this nation.
We do agree to that statement that all prisoners are not allowed to vote. they are prisoners,
especially those who did cheating during the election or those who corrupted. They don't have
the right to vote or be voted. as long as they are put in jail, they lost the right to vote. it's a
punishment for them.
2. In a debate with a motion "THBT The state should pay for cosmetic surgery", First
Proposition offers a model under which states should give any cosmetic procedure for free to any
of its citizens above the age of twelve.The First Opposition accuses the proposition of squirreling
on two counts. Firstly, the model proposed does not give cosmetic surgery to foreigners or
children which are clearly examples of the state paying for plastic surgery. Secondly, the model
does not make clear how the state will raise money for the scheme. Nonetheless, the First
opposition argues, the opposition will debate the motion as proposed. As an adjudicator, what do
you think?18 responses
looking at such a complex case where an unclear mechanism one's motion should be debated, i
thnk it's wise for me to declare that the first proposition have failed to carry out their duties.
revewing back to the motion that the state should pay for the for cosmetic surgery, would rise so
many questions and explanations for it to be agreed as it involves and will give impactto many
sectors such as finace and health also legal legal choice in one's country. therefore the first
proposition should be able to at leat answer the questions whp are the respondent? who are
taking responsibility, how are we going to run such program and doest it give benefit for the state
and what is that? the opposition team has already find points to attack, however, it is also very
important for the oposition team to re adjust and disagree with the definition or the mechanism
proposed bt the proposition team. the opposition team must also must have respond to the
unclear definition of how the state must pay pastic surgery rather that just say they will debate it
I think I agree with the opposition, because the proposition team doesn't give the mechanism
how to raise money for the scheme.
Tes
as an adjudicator I would say that the opposition statement does not correlate to the arguments
proposed by proposition team. as the proposition team has provided the models to whom it
should be free and has also given the limit of age children receive fee surgery. Moreover,
cosmetic surgery to foreigner is not the case here, as the proposition team has limit the recipient
for free surgery, while the opposition raise issues which are not related to proposition ideas.
therefore proposition might not have point for doing so.
The first opposition has clearly stated their motion by proposing the model and explain how the
model worked. However, the first opposition's first accusation of the proposition's model that it
doesn't include foreigners has no strong arguments because they are simply not the citizens, and
perhaps based on medical condition, children at the age of twelve is more ready to do plastic
surgery rather than children below twelve. However, it is still debatable because some medical
reasons can be used to decide whether plastic surgery can or can not be done. So, it is quiet
interesting debate, in which the proposition may take advantage of the opposition's accusation.
As adjudicator I would like to say that the argument of first proposition is better because as the
first speaker he has a duty to give the parameter and he mention about above the age of twelve as
the parameter. And propose should drive the debate. While the oppose seems like misunderstood
about the proposed argument that state should pay for cosmetic surgery. Because he mentioned
about foreigners (propose said : citizens means that foreigners are not include) and children
(propose has mentioned that the surgery is for age above 12 means children not included). So the
argument of oppose is irrelevant.
I am sure that proposition gives good argument with solution
I think, the accuse given to the affirmative team is unacceptable, not only that the negative team
fails to give strong arguments, but also the definition given by the affirmative team is enough.
i will win the opposition if the first opposition can debate the first proposition by asking those
two questions and if the opposition can make clearer reason and acceptable and also give more
evidence on his/her new statement/argument.. but i will win the proposition as long as the
proposition can give clear reason and evidence on the opposition question.
As an adjudicator, to me, the opposition team should follow the mechanism offered by
proposition team as long as it is still debatable. However, the negative may challenge the
definition with more reasonable and better explanation. Thus the debate will discuss more on the
definition rather than the argumentation.
As adjudicator I judge that oppsiton argument is weak. The Proposition parameter is clear that
free cosmetic surgery for citizens above twelve. No logical reason to make challenge defenition.
Oppsiton can not make their own parameter
The arguments given by the opposition team are make sense, because the pro team doesn't give
facts or authentic data about the cosmetic surgery. The pro team should elaborate more
arguments about their opinions supporting the motion.
as judicator I would like to say that the first proposition has stated good statement.
In my opinion, I absolutely agree with the opposition team, it is because the team sharply asked
about the mechanism how to raise money for the scheme.
I think there is nothing wrong with the motion. So, there is no urgency to debate the motion. The
opposition just needs to take the motion and defends their position towards the motion.
In my mind, it's impossible for the country to handle the expense of the surgery. The country
needs to build. Our country is still developing. it means that we need much money for that. so if
it is used to pay for the surgery expenses, it will be useless. and the government needs much
money to develop country. so in tis case I will win the opposition team because they are logic in
delivery their arguments.
3. In a debate with a motion "This House is against Stem Cell Cloning", the First Proposition
argues, “Human Cloning is unethical violating human rights, because it sacrifices human
embryos in its research process”. What is your possible rebuttal?19 responses
embryos should not be considered the same as fully developed person. i fact, two third embryos
failed to develop which in that point in human development. embryos is only a collection of a
few cells. technically, all of the genetic material is present but it hasnt become a human yet or
there is nothing that "life" can be cosidered as if it is loses it's host in this case woman, it would
die. so the potencial life should not be considered enough to qualify something to have the same
right as a fully developed human being
My possible rebuttal is that the cloning is stem cell cloning not human cloning. So there is no
relationship with human embryo.
Tes
cloning is unethical when it is done for unethical purposes such as for consumerism. However, it
can be ethically acceptable when it is done for the purpose of saving human generation as well as
research development to improve the quality of human.
My possible rebuttal may be : "but it is conducted for a clear reason and it is aimed to help
people to live in a better condition, I think we are also protecting human rights here. Human
rights in which people want to live in a better condition. Even sometimes, the process needs
sacrifice"
As a rebuttal I would like to say, that there a some unexpected babies. So, instead of the embryos
are wasted, it would be better if they are used for the research process. Human cloning is
meaningful for better life because it can create better forms of human. So human cloning using
stem cell is not violating human rights when the research process using unwanted embryos.
it'll give benefit in agreeculture point of view
Neither do the research have to take the stem cell needed from human nor it has to use embryo as
the source. Because stem cell can be gotten from placenta or umbilical cord. Anyway, they can
be taken from animals that they doesn't have to be from human, just like what happened in the
research of Dolly The Sheep.
the first proposition doesn't give limitation on who are the human? why are they cloned?
It may be sacrifising embryos in the research process but in the future it might save more lives
from the danger of death from uncessful birth and unable to give birth.
My possible rebuttal is that everything needs sacrifice. Moreover, this is for the sake of research
development and its worth doing because once it is successful, then the use of embryo can be
reduced.
Everyone has right to have better life. Cloning ia one way to improve the quality of human life.
Itu ia not to kill human but to make the human life better. Itu ia S solution for human probelms
and does not make the problems worse. Human cloning has more advantage saya than
disadvantages.
Stem cell cloning is an advance in medical and biological aspect, and we should be ready for that
kind of situation due to the improvement in biotechnology. Besides, before the cloning process is
applied, the agreement from the patient/participant should be the first priority to be done. It is not
sacrifice, It is willingness.
I would like to say that it is not available with our culture as an eastern.
In this case, the cloning is with the stem cell, Not the human embryos, so there is something
inconsistance with the statement.
Every research process always has risks. But we don't stop in doing research for the sake of
human as well. If this research succeeds, this stem cell cloning is not only useful for the
reproduction thing but also for other medical treatment.
I think We need to do clonning only for special people that we think better that others. We need
briliant people.
4. In a debate with a motion This House is against Capital Punishment, what would First
Proposition propose?19 responses
As the first proposition we would propose that capital punishment is against human right because
it takes someone's life. And it can be classified as a murderer too.
Tes
every human being has right to live their life. Even when someone makes serious mistakes,
he/she still has right for the second opportunity. In this case, we as the proposition would not
accept capital punishment as the final sentence. The retribution should be given but it does not
mean to cause loss of life. it can be a life sentence or life incarceration instead of capital
punishment.
They would propose other kinds of punishment to replace capital punishment. They would use
human rights as their shield not only against it, but also if it is possible to eliminate it and replace
capital punishment into a better, civilized punishment. maybe they would recommend long-life
sentence instead of capital punishment. Probably they still believe that everyone, including
criminals still have rights for a second chance. And capital punishment will not instantly decline
the number of crimes.
Capital punishment is a punishment that take the accused's life. As the government, we disagree
with this kind of punishment because there still an opportunity that a criminal might be wrongly
accused by the juries. There are some cases in capital punishment that the accused was wrongly
accused and it was proved when the punishment had been done, so it was too late. Moreover, the
accused was punished to be rehabilitated, it means that he still has the right to live and there is a
hope that he could be better after he was rehabilitated. And taking someone's life means doing
another crime because there is no human way in doing capital punishment. Finally, the
conclusion is that capital punishment doesn't give any deterrent effect because crimes still exist
although capital punishment is applied. And in this imperfect world where a lot of bad things
happens everyday, there's no worst thing that can be made as a reason to take someone's life.
because as human being, they shpuld be given the second chance.
That capital punishment is a violation of human right and that as if human is playing God by
taking one's life.
i will give the definition of capital punishment first, capital punishment means killing or ending
human life because of the mistakes she/he has done. the mistakes they have done is not hard like
terrorist and drugs sellers. this is about human right. every human has the same right to live and
the death can not be justified by others. life right is something fundamental. it is also not fair that
because of the mistakes they have done , they have to get capital punishment. i will give another
way beside capital , for example they can be sent into a jungle for 5 years or more alone without
taking any belonging.
Capital punishment is executing the lives of criminals for crimes. Even if this punishment is done
after a proper trial in court, it is still, in fact opposing and violating human right.
I think, we might say that capital punishment is immoral because it takes human life. While life
is the right of every one that must be fought for.
evidence always suggest that the death penalty does not stop or prevent people from commiting
crimes. it is cruel and cold blooded form of punishment and there have been instances where
innocent people were sentenced to death and later found to be innocent and no one could
responsible to such accidents so the first proposition will propose to erase the regulation of the
acceptance of capital punishment this house is the government of indonesia capital punishment is
death penalty evidence: even the terorists have sentenced to death previously, later there are even
more terors in the country *_*!
Capital punishment is not solution for a crime. Capital punishment stop the chance to change
behavior. The points is not how to kill the actor but how to change the bad action. No one can
quarantee that the punishment is 100 percent true. What about of someday three is new
evedennce that the person who has bernama given capital is procedure guilty.
evidence always suggest that the death penalty does not stop or prevent people from commiting
crimes. it is cruel and cold blooded form of punishment and there have been instances where
innocent people were sentenced to death and later found to be innocent and no one could
responsible to such accidents so the first proposition will propose to erase the regulation of the
acceptance of capital punishment this house is the government of indonesia capital punishment is
death penalty evidence: even the terorists have sentenced to death previously, later there are even
more terors in the country *_*! omigot
Human life is so valuable, we can not just take one's life because the man has killed someone..It
is revenge not giving justice. We also have to believe that everyone can change, for better or
worse. But at least we can give them chance to realize their mistake and become a better person.
live is one of human right so when capital punishment will be given it means that it is against.
As first speaker of proposition, we do not agrre with the capital punishment because it is agains
human right, it takes someone's life.
Capital punishment has been applied to certain cases and crimes. It has become a legal action to
end someone's life because the person has committed crime. We are against this kind of
punishment because this violates human's right. No matter how bad their crime is, they are still
human who have the right to live. By applying this punishment and even legally end their life,
we violate their right to live. No one in this world has any right to end other people's life. The
prisoners should keep alive so they can keep being punished as the consequences of their action.
You should know what capital punishment is. it is a kind of punishment that ends people's lives.
but who deserves that punishment. of course those who sell drugs, those who kill people by
planning. but they can be sentenced their whole lives instead of capital punishment. they should
be in jail for the rest of their lives.
This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. Report Abuse - Terms of Service