Pilih Bahasa Anda
Selamat Membaca
How To Get Japaneses Name ?

Archive for the ‘Lomba’ Category

Hello guys, I want to remind you about the early bird of the 2nd MNDC 2012 that hold by Malang Debate Union (MDU) will end in the next 7 days. So make sure your team are already paid and registered officially in this 2nd MNDC 2012.

 

Place    : Universitas Islam Negeri Maulana Malik Ibrahim Malang,

Humaniora and Culture Building, Home Theater 3rd Floor

Jalan Gajayana No 50 Malang

 

Time : 7th – 9th December 2012

Registration payment is devided into two phases :

1) Phase 1 (October 8th – 28th  2012)             300.000 idr

2) Phase 2 (October 29th – caps full)               350.000 idr

 

Contact us for further information

www.mndc2012.blogspot.com

fahri (085785826189)

Vina (085755660535)

 

So what are you waiting for? 😀

See you in this Prestigious East Java Wide Tournament ..

BANDUNG, itb.ac.id – Unit debat mahasiswa Student English Forum (SEF) ITB akan menyelenggarakan dua kejuaraan debat Bahasa Inggris mahasiswa tingkat nasional. Dua kejuaraan ini akan diselenggarakan dalam waktu kurang dari lima bulan, yakni akhir September 2012 dan Januari 2013.

Pada September 2012, SEF ITB akan menggelar Ganesha Open Debate Championship 2012. Kejuaraan ini memiliki format British Parliamentary (terdapat empat tim dalam satu pertandingan, tiap tim beranggotakan dua orang – red). Tak hanya yang berstatus mahasiswa, siswa Sekolah Menengah dan alumni pun dapat turut bertanding di kejuaraan ini. Bahkan, satu tim dapat terdiri atas individu dari institusi (sekolah maupun perguruan tinggi) yang berbeda. Hal ini sejalan dengan tujuan debat, yakni mempersiapkan generasi pemikir kritis, yang sejatinya tidak terbatas pada institusi, status pendidikan, dan usia tertentu saja.

Pada Januari 2013, unit mahasiswa ini akan menyelenggarakan Indonesian Varsities English Debate (IVED) Championship 2013. Tidak seperti Ganesha Opean, IVED memiliki format Australasian Parliamentary (terdapat dua tim dalam satu pertandingan, tiap tim beranggotakan tiga orang – red). IVED adalah kompetisi debat parlementer yang pertama se-Indonesia. Sejak pertama kali digelar tahun 1998, IVED diselenggarakan oleh tuan rumah yang berganti-ganti setiap tahunnya, yang dipilih melalui pertemuan dewan ‘council meeting’.

Pada IVED 2012 di Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang (UMM), SEF ITB mendapat kepercayaan untuk menjadi tuan rumah IVED 2013. Sepanjang sejarah penyelenggaraan turnamen ini, SEF ITB telah tiga kali menjadi penyelenggara, yakni pada 2001, 2010, dan 2013.

BRITISH PARLIAMENT GUIDANCE

Introduction:

This guide is aimed primarily at those of you who have little to no British Parliamentary experience. It is intended to illustrate the mechanics and basic tactics of BP. Sometimes beginners can be discouraged by BP because of various factors in the round. But BP done well can be an incredibly rewarding experience, and trying BP can improve the way you debate in other styles.

The Basics:

In BP there are 4 teams in each round. Two teams represent the Government, and two teams represent the Opposition. The Government supports the resolution, and the Opposition opposes the resolution. The teams are also divided into the Opening and Closing halves of the debate. The teams are organized like this in the room:

Opening Government (OG) Opening Opposition (OO)

Closing Government (CG) Closing Opposition (CO)

There are two speakers on each team. Each speaker has a title. The titles are:

OG: Prime Minister OO: Leader of the Opposition
Deputy Prime Minister Deputy Leader of the Opposition

CG: Member of the Government CO: Member of the Opposition
Government Whip Opposition Whip

The speaking order is as follows:
1. Prime Minister First Speaker, OG
2. Leader of the Opposition First Speaker, OO
3. Deputy Prime Minister Second Speaker, OG
4. Deputy Leader of the Opposition Second Speaker, OO
5. Member of the Government First Speaker, CG
6. Member of the Opposition First Speaker, CO
7. Government Whip Second Speaker, CG
8. Opposition Whip Second Speaker, CO

Debates are presided over by a Speaker, who is often the Chair of the adjudicator panel. The Speaker keeps time and calls debaters to the floor.

Each debater has 7 minutes to speak. The first and last minutes are protected time. This means that no POIs may be offered during this time. The Speaker will give a signal at the end and the beginning of protected time, at the seven-minute mark, and at the end of grace. The Speaker will probably not give time signals otherwise, so it is recommended that debaters bring a stopwatch to time themselves or their partner.

There are no Points of Order, or Points of Personal Privilege.

At the end of each debate, the teams will be ranked from first place to fourth place. Each ranking has a point value associated with it. The common point values used are as follows:

First Place = 3 points
Second Place = 2 points
Third Place = 1 point
Fourth Place = 0 points

Your points are added over the course of the tournament. The break is determined by point total, and speaker points if some teams have the same point total.

Matter and Manner

In BP there are two categories that you are judged on as a speaker. Matter is the content of your speech, and manner is how you present that content. Matter and manner are weighted equally. The lists include some of the more common elements of matter and manner, but are not exhaustive.

Matter Includes:
· Substantive arguments for your side
· Rebuttal arguments
· Case Studies / Facts
· POIs

Manner Includes:
· Humor
· Appropriate language
· Engaging the audience

Roles of the Teams and Speakers

You’ll hear a lot about the “roles” of teams and speakers in BP. In order for a round to be able to develop properly, the teams participating in the round must fulfill certain criteria. When they succeed they will have fulfilled their role and they will be developing the debate. If they fail then the debate will suffer in quality because of it, and this will absolutely be considered in the adjudication.

Roles of the Teams (Overview)

Opening Government:
· Defines the terms of the debate
· Opens the case for the Government
· Opposes the case of the Opening Opposition when it is presented

Opening Opposition:
· Opposes the case of the Opening Government
· Opens the case for the Opposition

Closing Government:
· Extends the Government case
· Opposes the cases of the Opening and Closing Opposition teams
· Summarizes the debate

Closing Opposition:
· Extends the Opposition case
· Opposes the cases of the Opening and Closing Opposition teams
· Summarizes the debate


Roles of the Speakers (Overview)

Prime Minister (Opening Government):
· Defines the resolution
· Introduces the Government case

Leader of the Opposition (Opening Opposition):
· Rebuts what PM said
· Introduces Opening Opposition case
· If there’s going to be a definitional challenge, the LO must mention it in their speech, otherwise all the other teams in the round must accept the original definition (See: Challenging the Definition)

Deputy Prime Minister (Opening Government):
· Rebuts what LO said
· Continues Opening Government case

Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Opening Opposition):
· Rebuts what DPM said
· Continues Opening Opposition case

Member of the Government (Closing Government):
· Extends the Government case
· Rebuts what DLO said



Member of the Opposition (Closing Opposition):
· Extends the Opposition case
· Rebuts what MG said

Government Whip (Closing Government):
· May introduce new contentions, but it’s not generally recommended
· Rebuts what the MO said
· Summarizes the debate

Opposition Whip (Closing Government):
· Absolutely no new contentions may be introduced, but new evidence in support of existing contentions may be introduced
· Rebuts what the GW said
· Summarizes the debate

Role of the Opening Government

The first goal of an OG team is to present a clear, coherent, and above all, contentious case. Remember that the OG case must be contentious enough to last for eight speeches, and 56 minutes of debate. One of the most important things OG teams should keep in mind is that bold cases are generally better to run than squirreled cases that run out of steam within the first few speeches. It is debate, after all. This doesn’t mean that you should propose that humans eat their young. But it does mean that you shouldn’t be afraid of proposing controversial models or cases. The major point: Propose bold, but not suicidal cases.

The next thing that you must remember as OG is that your case must be within the spirit of the resolution. At most BP tournaments the resolutions are directed. This means that the resolution will hint at the topic that should be discussed. However, the wording will usually be such that the OG will have a degree of flexibility in how they frame their case. However, a degree of flexibility does not mean that the OG can ignore the resolution (like we do at most CUSID tournaments).

An example of an acceptable and unacceptable interpretation of a resolution:

Resolution: THW Sell its Children

Acceptable: THW Legalize Surrogacy for Profit

Unacceptable: THBT Developing Nations Should Prioritize Economic Development
Over Environmental Protection

The reason why the second interpretation is abusive is because the original resolution clearly hints at a topic involving the exchange of children for some benefit. This could be a myriad of things, from surrogacy for profit, to foreign adoption limits. So the OG has a degree of flexibility in choosing a topic relating to the selling of children. With this in mind, the second interpretation clearly goes against the spirit of the resolution.

The Role of the Opening Opposition

The Opening Opposition role is probably the one that debaters new to BP will have the least amount of trouble with. It’s fairly similar to the standard CP Opposition, but with different timings. However, there are some extremely important differences between the two.

As the OO team, your role is twofold. You must refute what the OG team has said, but it is not enough to simply poke holes in the OG case. You must also bring in constructive arguments of your own. It is not enough to go into a BP round as an OO team and do a rebuttal-only opposition. A good OO case would make sense if the wording of the resolution were reversed, and OO became the OG. You have to bring your own constructive analysis to the round.

Good OO teams will often tie in some of their rebuttal with their constructive points as well. This allows the judges to see that you’re engaging with the other team’s arguments as well as using them to build up your own. Using this style will also help you stay under the time limit, which is often a difficult thing to do if you’re faced with a lot of rebutting and summarizing.

So remember: It’s not enough to say why their ideas are stupid, you have to say why your ideas are smart.

The Role of the Closing Teams

The closing positions of the debate are where we see the most significant difference between BP and CP debating. Both closing teams are expected to offer an extension for their opening team’s case. What is an extension? An extension can take many forms:

· Switching the focus of the debate from practical to philosophical arguments, or vice versa
· Bringing in new practical/philosophical arguments
· Focusing on a specific case study
· Focusing on an already mentioned argument and expanding on it significantly

This is an incredibly short list of acceptable extensions. The main goal for a closing team is to differentiate yourself from the opening team, but still support them. It is very important that you support the opening team. But at the same time it’s still important for your arguments to be better than theirs. So you have to make sure that your case has an over-arching theme that the judges can easily identify, that makes your team distinct from the opening team, and still supports the opening team. This doesn’t have to be difficult. Many teams stress themselves out about the closing positions because of the extension, but being on the closing half of the debate has distinct advantages. The closing teams have the ability not only to introduce their own constructive matter and rebut what the other team has said, but also to summarize the debate in their own words.

The summary is to be done by the second speaker on each closing team. This is an integral part of the role of each closing team. There are many ways to summarize the debate. Some speakers like to identify the main themes that were analyzed during the round. Some speakers like to label each team with a name describing their arguments. One of the easiest ways for debaters new to BP to go through their summary speech is to identify three questions that need to be answered at the end of the round, and say why your side, and particularly your team, bring the best resolution to those questions. Any style you choose is fine so long as it gives a substantive summary of the arguments in the round, and why you won those arguments. As a reminder: The Opposition Whip is not allowed any new arguments in their speech, and it is highly recommended that the Government Whip focus entirely on summery, as well.

Basic Tactics and Pitfalls:

POIs:
· Give two POIs, and take two POIs
· POIs shouldn’t be given for the sole purpose of destroying the other team’s case. POIs should build your case up as well.

· If you’re in the opening half of the debate your priority in the second half should be to remain involved. Make sure your arguments aren’t lost among the second half of the debate. POIs are the best way to accomplish this.
· If you’re in the second half of the debate then you should be extremely careful about the POIs that you give to first half teams. Sometimes your opening team may try and steal your extension if you give too much away in your POIs.
· Try to remain involved in the debate by standing on POIs, but do not harass the speaker by continually standing on POIs and saying things like “On Liberty”, “On the Geneva Convention”, etc.
· It is always better to get in one or two excellent POIs than four or five mediocre ones. One of the best ways to accomplish this is for you and your partner to put a sheet a paper between you with your best POI written down. Then, when the speaker takes either of you you’re certain to have an excellent POI.
· Just because everyone else is standing up on a POI doesn’t mean you have to, Sometimes when a speaker says something monumentally stupid everyone on opposite benches will stand up. Usually the speaker won’t take a POI at that time, but if there’s someone who stood up late, they just might let them ask a question. Often, the debater giving the POI will be caught off-guard by this. So don’t stand up on a POI just because everyone else is. But if you do, make sure you have a question.
· Let people finish their question before you wave them down, but if they start to make a speech, or refuse to sit down, start waving them down immediately. If they still won’t sit down then the speaker will deal with them.
· Finish your thought before you accept a question. It is very easy to forget where you were if you allow someone to interrupt you.
· If you want to get your question taken it is often better to stand at the end of the speaker’s point. They’ll be more likely to take you.
· If you are in a round with teams of very disparate skills, it may at first seem like a good idea to take POIs from the weakest team. And that can work. But the judges will be more impressed if you give a good answer to a difficult POI than if you smack down a weak POI. So you might want to choose to take POIs from the better team. This will show the judges that you’re willing to engage the better team in the round.

Organization:
· At the beginning of your speech tell the judges what you’re going to be speaking about.
· More advanced debaters may feel comfortable speaking without numbering their points or signposting where they’re going with their speech. But the majority of beginning BP debaters will probably find it helpful to number their points and to make very clear to the judges what they’re speaking about. This helps the judges keep track of your most important points, and it helps you cover everything you need to.
· Pay attention to your timing. If you say that you’re going to introduce three constructive points and then you run out of time, that will reflect poorly on you.
· Always fill your time.

Speaking Style:
· The most important thing is to keep the audience engaged. You don’t want them drifting off and thinking you’re boring.
· There are many ways to keep the audience and judges engaged. These include humor, intelligent analysis, and delivery.
· Not everyone can be a funny speaker, and that’s ok. Most people aren’t. But it will help if you can use a few funny quips, or open with a joke.
· Avoid being monotonous. Vary your tone and pace of delivery.
· Never insult another debater’s race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. Anything offensive will be penalized. Err on the side of caution.

Analysis:
· Try to introduce facts, case studies, and philosophical analysis instead of statistics.
· Statistics are boring, they can be easily dismissed by the opposition, they generally fall into “specific knowledge”, and they’re easily falsified.
· Focus on examples. Appropriate examples and case studies will make a case better for the beginning BP debater than any pretty rhetoric can.
· Stay focused. Remember what you are trying to communicate to the audience, and then communicate it. Don’t go off on tangents.

Definitional Challenges:
· Definitional challenges are exceedingly rare.
· Do not object to a definition of a resolution if it is merely stupid or generally bad.
· The only time you should object to the definition is if it is a truism or tautology.
· The only speaker who can object to the OG definition is the LO. If the LO doesn’t object, no one else can.
· If the LO objects to the definition then they must substitute their own.
· The remaining debaters then have to decide which definition to use.
· If the remaining debaters use the LOs definition then the debate can continue on like normal.
· If there is still disagreement about the definition then the closing teams must decide which definition to support, or whether to substitute their own.
· This is why it is usually an exceptionally bad idea to challenge a definition that isn’t a truism or tautology. It’s very messy.


Knifing:
· Knifing is when a closing team, or even a partner on the same team, blatantly disagrees with a fundamental part of the substantive case that they’re supposed to be supporting. (Effectively knifing someone in the back).
· In the vast majority of situations you should not knife your opening team. It will be a negative factor for you in the adjudication as supporting your opening team is a fundamental part of your role.
· However, occasionally your opening team will be so shrill and off the mark that you’ll have to basically ignore what they said in order to salvage your side of the round. You may have to twist what they said in order to make sense of their case. Be careful with this strategy. You probably won’t take a first, but you may be able to salvage a point or two out of the round.

Tactics for High Bracket Rounds:
· While it is always a good thing to take a first place in a BP round, once you get into the high bracket rounds the most important thing is to avoid taking the fourth..
· When you get into high rooms you’ll find that the competition between the teams becomes that much closer. So it’s important not to give the judges an excuse to drop you. Watch the small things as well as the big ones. Be careful with timings, signposting, and rebutting what your opponents have said.
· Do not stress out about your position in the round, or whether other teams are really good. Concentrate only on staying involved in the round, and demonstrating good analysis and argumentation. A lack of confidence will show through.

 

Source : http://soved2013.blogspot.com/p/introduction-this-guide-is-aimed.html

REGISTRATION DETAILS

Important Dates :

Stage 1 : Pre- registration

  • 11 OCT –  28 OCT 2012

Stage 2 : Payment

  • 29 OCT – 25 DEC 2012

Stage 3 : Participants details

  • 1  DEC – 30 DEC 2012
 Additional Info
  • Waiting List Announcement                : 26 Nov- 16 Dec 2012
  • Extended Payment for Waiting List     : 17 Nov 2012 –  12 January 2013

Stage 1 out of 3 : Pre- registration

Registration Period : 11 OCT –  28 OCT 2012 
You MUST register during this period only. Any applications before 8 Oct will be ignored. Status confirmation will be informed right after your institution has registered within the tournament cap. Please register your institution below.


 <<< CLICK HERE TO REGISTER >>>

Stage 2 out of 3 : Payment

Payment Period : 29 OCT – 25 DEC 2012 
Once you’ve received our confirmation email, you can pay the registration fee to

BNI  Medan 
310-1199-180
a.n Yasmita Sari 
Further inquiries can be asked to : 
Mita  :082161602419
Rizki  :085658517149
Please confirm as soon as possible once you pay the registration fee. Bear in your mind that we will not reimburse any cancellation of participation.

Stage 3 out of 3 : Participants Details

Participants Details Period: 1st  DEC – 30 DEC 2012

Participants details shall be completed before the end of December.

Initiated by Sumatra debater, we’re proud to announce for the first time, Indonesia will have its 1st ever Sumatra Overland English Debate  (SOVED) in 2013 under the theme “SOVED 2013: Let’s Unite!”



WHO, WHERE, WHEN?


Aimed for all Varsity from all over Sumatra*. Organized by Medan Debate Society, Supported by On That Point Institute of Artistic Speaking, and Hosted by Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatra Utara (UMSU), SOVED 2013 will take place at Medan,  30 January – 2 February 2013. Within 5 rounds of Preliminary, 1 Quarter round, 1 Semi and of course A big Grand Final round.


BENEFIT?


SOVED 2013 Aim for stronger proliferation of English Debate between all Institution over Sumatra, more enrichment between its member, and better preparation for NUEDC in the future. Committed to provide the best debate experience and services at SOVED 2013, we invite all enthusiastic English debaters from all over Sumatra.


DETAILS?


Using British Parliamentary (BP) format with 40 team cap, SOVED 2013 will also have Debate & Adjudicator Seminar to provide better & higher quality of competition. SOVED 2013 using rules of Institutional Cap = 4 teams & N=1 Rules, where every institution only need to send 1 N1 Adj. no matter how many teams they send limited to maximum of 4 teams.


ADJ. CORE?


We’re proud to have Bryan Gunawan as Chief Adjudicator. Bryan will be here at Medan to provide the best quality of seminar and competition to enhance stronger proliferation amongst Sumatra debate society. He is the DCA for NUEDC 2011 and NSU Bangladesh ABP 2011, Subsidized Adjudicator for NUEDC 2012, BIPEDS Indonesia ABP 2012, and HongKong Debate Open 2012.


We also would like to announce SOVED 2013 open recruitment for Invited Adj. and Deputy Chief Adjudicator. If you’re interested, submit your Debate & Adjudication CV along with position you would like to apply with subject [SOVED2013] -Your Name- (Ex: [SOVED2013] Rizky Hardiyanti) to bryan@… the latest by November 4th for the DCA Applicant and November 25th for the Invited Adj. applicant.

Please be informed that all flights and accommodation subsidy + registration waiver to Medan will be provided. For the DCA and Invited Adj, it is open to all Indonesian judges.


HOW TO REGISTER?


Soon we will announce to you how much is for the registration fee, prizes along with Important dates for registration and payment phase.

 

To provide you better information of the competition, soon we will announce the websites for you to check what you can get in SOVED 2013. Including how to register, benefit from joining SOVED 2013, along with SOVED Council preparation.


For further information, you can contact the CP:


Via Mobile Phone

Mitha: 082161602419
Reza : 085270065444

Or follow our twitter : @soved.medan

 

* SOVED 2013 only opens for Varsity from Sumatra Islands, including islands over Sumatra island.


This is going to be a stepping stone for Sumatran debaters and we hope that this excitement can bring Sumatran debaters one step closer to a betterment!


Best Regards, 

Rizki Hardiyanti


Project Officer

UMSU Debating Society

Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatra Utara

Round 1. TH WOULD BAN ALCOHOL COMPANIES FROM SPONSORING SPORTS        
Round 2. THW ALLOW MEMBER OF PARLIAMENTS TO CROSS THE FLOOR        
Round 3. TH WOULD BAN ART THAT GLORIFIES CRIMINALITY            
Round 4. THBT EUROZONE COUTRIES THAT ARE IN DANGER OF DEFAULT SHOULD BE FORCED TO GIVE UP CONTROL OVER TAXATION AND BUDGET SPENDING TO ECB IN EXCHANGE OF RECEIVING A BAILOUT            
Round 5. THW NOT VOTE FOR POLITICIANS WHO ARE SERIALLY UNFAITHFUL TO THEIR PARTNERS                            
Round 6. THW DECIDE THE EXTENT OF ABORTION RIGHTS THROUGH A REFERENDUM WHERE WOMEN AND ONLY WOMEN CAN PARTICIPATE

source : http://bddebate.blogspot.com/

This house would abolosh student Grants

This house would take that and party

This house believes that America’s right is wrong

This house believes that the olympic ideal is dead

This house would reimpose Section 31 of the Broadcasting Act

This house would support the armed struggle

Thie house believes that Gerry Adam should still serve 3000 Life sentences

This house believes that Michael Collins is judged by his words and DeValera by the his deeds

This house would reject semesterisation

This house would give the Affricannas a homeland

This house favours compulsary aids testing

This house favours Genetic Engineering

This house would give Russia back to the Communists

This house believes that hetrosexuals make better parents

This house believes that the U.N. Should shape up or ship out.

This house believes that Nationalism is a hangover from History

This house believes that Famine is a human creation

This house would pay for a college education

This house believes that a womans intellegence is proportional to the length of her skirt

This house would remain outside the pale

This house would reintroduce prohibition

This house believes that God is a woman

This house believes that science has made God redundant

This house believes that Marraige is for life

This house would ban blood sports

This house believes that extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice.

This House would wait and see

This house believes that an Ethical Forigen policy is no forigen policy

This house would rock the Cradle

This house would march against tuition fees

This house would put women in the front line

This house believes that the problem with political jokes is that them mostly get elected

This house believes that Parliamentary debate no longer has any relevence for the citizen

This house condones anti-drug vigilantes

This house believes there’s nothing quite like a McDonalds

This house would put it’s finger in the dyke

This house Mourns the passing of Enoch Powell

This house believes spin doctors should carry a Government Health Warning

This house would celebrate the Millenium

This house believes its good to talk

This house believes that Government is on a slippery slope

This house believes in the special relationship

This house would censor the surfers

This house wants its Dolly

This house favours P.R. Over first past the post

This house favours zero tolerence

This house would join a European Defence alliance

This house believes that Northern Nationalists have nothing to fear from a United Kingdom

This house regrets the breakup of the USSR

This house would permit Gay couples to adopt

This house would positively disctiminate

This house believes that decommissioning should be a precondition to all party talks

This house believes that the Unites Nations is a spent force

This house believes that the private lives ofpublic figures should remain private

This house believes that the OJ Simpson verdict was good for justice

This house believes that freedom is wasted on the Russians

This house believes that the Death Penalty is a necessity

This house would give votes to emigrants

This house believes that libel law is a remedy for the rich

This house would Ban “Michael Collins”

This house would censor the internet

This house would ban Paul Gascoine

This house would increase the pay of TDs

This house would take a virginity pledge

This house would vote yes to bail reform

This house welcomes Clinton’s victory

This house believes that the collapse of the IRA ceasefire was a failure for the Irish Government

This house would police the media with a privacy law

This house would genetically engineer farm animals

This house would sink Brittannia

This house believes that Nationalism is the last refuge of the Scoundrel

This house believes that democracy has failed the third world

This house would switch off Granny

This house believes that the source of crime is social Deprevation

This house believes that Irish Unionism has no place in the U.K.

Modern Technlolgy- A Blessing or a curse

This House would Ban Boxing

This house believes that OJ Simpson was Guilty

This house would support the public funding of political parties

This House would not Negotiate before IRA decomminishing

This house would re-introduce corporal punishment

This house would legalise soft drugs

This house has lost confidence in the Catholic Church

This house believes that the Irish Farmer is outstanding in his field

This house believes in love at first NIGHT

This house retains confidence in the peace process

This house believes nurses are good for you

This house would abolish the Senate

This house believes that the values of western civilisation cannot meet the challenges of the modern age

This house believes that a return to religion is the only solution to our present discontent

This house believes in the right to march

This house believes that Northerners do it better

This house would pop a pill and party

This house would look to the east for inspiration

This house believes that peer pressure is Tobacco’s best salesman

This house demande a right to privacy

This house would party its way into the millenium

This house believes sthdents have never had it so good

This house would mind the gap

This house would leave the final frontier to fiction

This house would choose life

This house would be proud of pride

This house would adopt a green agenda

This house has no confidence in her majesty’s government

This house believes that education is a matter of faith

This house believes that DeV was a visionary

This house would Commemerate and be damned

This house would build a Bridge to reality

This house believes there is a crock of gold under the rainbow

This house favours the death penalty

This house believe that the white race should cop on

This house would reject the AIDs Myth

This house believes that women should get an equal position in war with men

This house would make money out of the Holocaust

This house would watch more Television

This house believes that right wing politics are the way forward

This house would rejoin the commonwealth

This house believes that religion and politics don’t mix

This house would publish and be admned

This house regrets the loss of cultural identity

That we are becoming museum cultures

That we should repatriate sll illegal immigrants

That Echotourism has failed

That microsoft has monopoly over creativity

That freedom of expression should extend to flag burning

That we should restrict vehicle access to the city

That wimboldon should offer equal prize money for men’s and women’s championship

That no sportsman is worth 32 billion dollar a season

That the war on drugs is worth the fight

That sex isnot an art

That we should subsidize traditional industries

That we should legitimise alternative medicine

That we should privatise education

That conditions designed to prevent child labour should be attached to trade agreements

That we would take the sex industry off the street

That the negative should buy a ticket to the farm

That Paula and Monica should change to a new brand of dental floss

That we should support the fishbal conspiracy

That the statue of liberty should face the other way

That we should protect the private life of the preident

That we would re-unite the church and the state

That democracy has failed India

That the only human right is the right to good governance

That Asian democracies are the meals in the ‘conceptual cafe’. There is a plate with nothing on it but we pretend to eat it anyway.

 

That the governments should leave cults alone.

That religious harmony is a myth.

That activism in politics by religious groups should be banned.

That the separation of the church and the state has gone too far.

That religious sects should be free from government interference.

That if God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him.

That religion is the crutch of the weak.

That religion is the opiate of the masses.

That religion has no place in man’s advancement.

That capitalism would collapse without religion.

That democracy is the new religion of today.

That Islamic revivalism is a reality of tomorrow.

That Islam received unfair media treatment.

That we should fear Islam.

That Islam has had a bad press.

That the Pope should get married

That genetic engineering triggers more harm than good.

That thou shalt not clone.

That sperm bank is just like any other banks.

That science should hang its head in shame.

That we have lost our faith in science.

That morals and science do not mix.

That science is the alchemy of our age.

That science has outlived its usefulness.

That we should not play god with genes.

That engineering genes should be left to levi.

That modern technology is more foe than friend.

That man cannot be totally human until the machines are destroyed.

That space should be left to itself.

That we place too much faith in the medical profession.

That patenting of medical findings is justified.

That democracy is tied to mediocrity.

That democracy is an illusion.

That democracy is overvalued.

This house will practice direct democracy.

That parliament is no longer the peoples house.

That the individual is being suppressed by the lobby group.

That this house supports one term presidency.

That corruption is the handmaiden of politics.

That corruption is inevitable in politics.

That there is too much secrecy in government.

That the New World Order has made a better world.

That the unipolar world is more peaceful.

That strikers should be sacked.

That the strike is a fair weapon.

That strikes are acts of war against the community

That unionism threatens democracy.

That demonstrations are a waste of time.

That banner bearers do more harm than good.

That we should have more freedom.

That we should be our own censors.

That censorship can never be justified.

That censorship is an insult to the intelligence.

That a free press is an essential organ of a modern democracy.

That the media should have a greater sense of social justice.

That the media has had a bad press.

That the media is corrupting our society.

That TV does more harm than good.

That the press is depressing.

That the press should print all the news.

That the press should stay out of the bedroom.

That politicians are public property.

That identity cards pose a threat to our privacy.

That intelligence services have no place within democracies.

That terrorism should not be publicised.

That the Human rights are but a song and dance

That there is no such thing as universal human rights.

That trade rights should be linked to human rights.

That the new world order requires an international police force.

That our leaders are to blame.

That nationalism is too dangerous.

That nationalism is a virtue.

That we should love our country right or wrong.

That national frontiers should be mere lines on a map.

That there is no case for terrorism.

That social injustice justifies political violence.

That extremism in the defence if liberty is justifiable.

That the information superhighway should have more traffic lights.

That the UN should give up on Bosnia.

That sovereignty is an outdated concept.

That we should trade land for peace.

That we can trust North Korea.

That from Indonesia’s point of view, the annexation of East Timor was the right thing to do.

That the United Nations no longer lives up to its ideals.

That the UN should take a greater role as a global enforcer.

That the UN should have a standing army.

That there are no inalienable rights.

That Australia should be part of Asia.

That Australasia should have a court of human rights.

That the president of the Republic should be elected by the people.

That the first fleet was an invasion.

That America is an evil empire.

That the US is a better enemy than it is a friend.

That we should thank god for America.

That this house would say Yankee go home.

That we west should leave the middle east alone.

That our armed forces should be abolished.

That the cold war was the best deterrent.

That we should regret the end of the cold war.

That non-nuclear nations should stay that way.

That to preserve peace we should prepare for war.

That intervention is counter-productive.

That military intervention is a necessary evil.

That this house condemns the inclusion of Myanmar into ASEAN.

That following orders is no excuse.

That diplomacy is the tool of the weak.

That NATO is no longer necessary.

That the expansion of NATO is a wrong move.

That Russia should join NATO.

That the peace in the Middle East is an illusion.

That the peace agreement on Mindanao was the right thing to do.

That Japan should be Asia’s policeman.

That we need uncle Sam.

That uncle Sam is a poor relation.

That we should put uncle Sam behind the wheel.

That uncle Sam should stay at home.

That debating is a waste of time.

That women make better bosses.

That the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

That women should be seen and not heard.

That boys talk more than girls.

That we shouldn’t trust anyone over thirty.

That big brother is preferable to big sister.

That life starts at 12.

That school days are the best days of our lives.

That we would rather be good looking than rich.

That video games are a waste of time.

That teachers should wear uniforms.

This house would beam Scotty up.

This house cannae give ye anymore, Captain.

This house would boldly go where no house has gone before.

That old man forget.

That Oklahoma city was a good start.

That pensioners should be put down.

That in vino veritas (in wine there is truth).

That we should eat our pizza backward.

That we should make first contact.

That we should not trust men with centre parting.

That we should go where the next train goes.

That it is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.

That there is no life in IIUM.

That debaters make better spouses.

That the best things in life come in small packages.

That there is always a next bus.

That coke is the symbol of our age.

That it is too late to shut the gate.

That this house would open its doors to the world.

That this house will forgive and forget.

That there are too many squares inside the circle.

That high fences make good neighbours.

That we have lost our sense of adventure.

That we cannot afford the stars.

That we should wait and see.

That we should merge into one lane.

That escape is a legitimate solution.

That life is too short.

That money is more useful than brain.

That we should grow cabbages rather than roses.

That tolerance costs too much.

That tolerance is weakness.

That the sun is sinking on the west.

That the best defence is a good offence.

That Machiavelli is the way to go.

That our future is out of this world.

That family and feminism are incompatible.

That we will only be post-feminist in post patriarchy.

That housewives should be paid for their work.

That women make better husbands.

That feminism should give way to multiculturalism.

That feminism is corrupting the family.

That reproductive technologies are anti-women.

That a woman needs a man as much as a fish needs a bicycle.

That same-sex couple should be allowed to adopt children.

That co-education is desirable.

That corporatisation of universities will hurt the cause of knowledge.

That money spent on sending students abroad is money well spent.

That the government should no longer subsidise university education.

That education is too important for politics.

That sex education should be made compulsory.

That education should be a privilege not a right.

That attendance at school should be voluntary.

That the five day school week is too long.

That the population explosion is more critical than nuclear hazards.

That poverty is a blessing.

That espionage is immoral.

That we should ration the old to nurture the young.

That the generation gap is a myth.

That urban life is dehumanising.

That racial equality is an impossible ideal.

That White House is not meant for coloured residents.

That money rules our lives.

That the developing nations should not follow the western model.

That the Western way of life is doomed.

That money is our biggest problem

That prosperity is the best measure of success.

That parenthood should be by license only.

That zoos should be closed.

That experiments on animals should be banned.

That multiculturalism is a mirage.

That racial vilification should be a crime.

That we should rethink affirmative action.

That publicity is a better salesperson than quality.

That teachers should retain the right to corporally punish pupils.

Overpopulation is the problem.

That tourism is debauching our culture.

That while English remains the international language of the world, the West will hold over the rest.

That single parent household is better than a traditional family of strife.

That the Asian values are a barrier to development.

That the bride should wear black.

That cigarette advertising should be banned.

That there should not be cigarette sponsorship of sport.

That the baby bank was actually a good idea.

That the day of the amateur is over.

That politics in sport should be banned.

That professional athletes should be able to compete in the Olympics.

That sportsmanship and commercialism are incompatible.

That sport is an opiate of the masses.

That the pen is mightier than the sword.

That we are ruled by habit.

That a little learning is a dangerous thing.

That we would rather have jam in the hand than pie in the sky

That EMU is an Emu.

That we would rather be citizens of Singlasia.

That the West will regret free trade.

That trade unions have served their purpose.

That trade unions have too much power.

That the capitalist system is doomed to collapse.

That trading hours should be unrestricted.

That we cannot afford high wages.

That unions have served their purpose.

That there must always be the poor.

That third world debt should be cancelled.

That third world aid should be dependent on birth control.

That small government is the best government.

That an informed public is more important than a fair trial.

That corporal punishment is not the answer to juvenile delinquency.

That the keeping of pets in private homes should be made illegal.

That reward is more effective than punishment.

That there is a different law for the rich.

That the carrot is more effective than the stick.

That prostitution should be legalised.

That we should legalise voluntary euthanasia.

That we should ban alcohol.

That judges should be elected.

That justice is a myth.

That the Singaporean justice system should be a model for us all.

That corporal punishment will sort the buggers out.

That imprisonment as a method of punishment is outdated.

That parents should not be allowed to hit children.

That All drugs should be legal.

That there is no such thing as a right to die.

That the jury get in the way of justice.

That there should be mandatory jail sentence for those who pollute the environment.

That gun control only helps criminals.

That the keeping of pets in private homes should be made illegal.

That child abusers deserve to die.

That we are unworthy of our environment.

That Antarctica should be a world park.

That environmentalism should replace capitalism.

That green is an unhealthy colour.

That sustainable development is a myth.

That environmentalism is but a western ploy.

That sustainable development is an oxymoron.

That capitalists cannot be environmentalists.

That the North should pay for the protection of environmental assets.

All citizens ought to perform a period of national service

Civil disobedience in a democracy is justified

Humen rights ought not be sarcrificed for national security interests

The restriction of civil liberties for the sake of combating terrorism is justified

When an elected representative puts the opinion of his constituency above his personal judgement he fails to serve the public interest

Contribution to society is the measure of individual worth

When in conflict society’s goal of eliminating discrimination ought to transcend an individual’s right to participate in exclusive voluntary associations

Citizens ought to have the right to bear arms

Society’s obligation to the poor ought to be valued above individual economic freedom

HUMAN RIGHTS OUGHT NOT BE SACRIFICED FOR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS.

MANDATORY DRUG TESTING OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS IS JUSTIFIED.

THE PROTECTION OF SOCIETY’S HEALTH INTERESTS THROUGH BROAD-BASED MANDATORY TESTING FOR AIDS OUGHT TO BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PERSONAL PRIVACY RIGHTS.

A COMMON CULTURE IS OF GREATER VALUE THAN A PLURALISTIC CULTURE.

THE PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO KNOW OUTWEIGHS A CANDIDATE’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY.

THE PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO KNOW OUGHT TO BE VALUED ABOVE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS.

AN INDIVIDUAL’S FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS OF GREATER VALUE THAN SOCIAL HARMONY.

GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP OF INDIVIDUAL EXPRESSION FOR THE GOOD OF SOCIETY IS JUSTIFIED.

HATE SPEECH OUGHT TO BE CENSORED FOR THE GOOD OF SOCIETY.

COMMUNITY CENSORSHIP OF PORNOGRAPHY IS JUSTIFIED.

WHEN IN CONFLICT, THE RIGHT TO A FREE PRESS IS A HIGHER PRIORITY THAN THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL.

SHOWING DISRESPECT FOR THE AMERICAN FLAG IS ANTITHETICAL TO FUNDAMENTAL AMERICAN VALUES.

SOCIETY IS WELL-SERVED BY THE MAINTENANCE OF A SEPARATE CULTURE FOR THE DEAF.

INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES OUGHT TO BE AFFORDED THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES AS ABLE-BODIED ATHLETES.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO REMEDY THE EFFECTS OF DISCRIMINATION IS JUSTIFIED.

THE PURSUIT OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE OUGHT TO BE LIMITED BY A CONCERN FOR SOCIETAL GOOD.

GOVERNMENT HAS A DUTY TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR THE ARTS.

GOVERNMENT HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO REGULATE THE CONTENT OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THEIR CITIZENS THROUGH THE INTERNET.

LAWS WHICH PROTECT CITIZENS FROM THEMSELVES ARE JUSTIFIED.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS JUSTIFIED.

GOVERNMENT THAT GOVERNS LEAST GOVERNS BEST.

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IN A DEMOCRACY IS JUSTIFIED.

THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW OUGHT TO TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE LETTER OF THE LAW.

GOVERNMENT BY A BENEVOLENT DICTATOR IS PREFERABLE TO A DEMOCRACY.

WHEN AN ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE PUTS THE OPINION OF HIS CONSTITUENCY ABOVE HIS PERSONAL JUDGMENT HE FAILS TO SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM OUGHT TO PLACE A HIGHER VALUE ON REHABILITATION THAN ON RETRIBUTION.

IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TRUTH-SEEKING OUGHT TO TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION.

NATIONAL INTEREST SHOULD BE VALUED OVER MORAL PRINCIPLE IN THE CONDUCT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

A GOVERNMENT OWES NO DUTY TO PROTECT THE WELFARE AND RIGHTS OF CITIZENS OF OTHER NATIONS.

THE UNITED STATES OUGHT TO VALUE GLOBAL CONCERNS ABOVE ITS OWN CONCERNS.

A NATION’S SOVEREIGNTY OUGHT TO BE VALUED OVER INTERNATIONAL ORDER.

THE POSSESSION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS IS IMMORAL.

SOCIETY’S OBLIGATION TO THE POOR OUGHT TO BE VALUED ABOVE INDIVIDUAL ECONOMIC FREEDOM.

A WELFARE SYSTEM OUGHT TO PLACE A HIGHER VALUE ON CREATING JOBS THAN ON PROVIDING SUBSIDIES

CAPITALISM PROVIDES FOR A BETTER SOCIETY THAN SOCIALISM..

COMPETITION IS SUPERIOR TO COOPERATION IN ACHIEVING EXCELLENCE.

A GOVERNMENT OWES NO DUTY TO PROTECT THE WELFARE AND RIGHTS OF CITIZENS OF OTHER NATIONS.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES OUGHT TO BE VALUED ABOVE THE PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT.

PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT OUGHT TO BE A HIGHER GOVERNMENTAL PRIORITY THAN ENCOURAGING ECONOMIC GROWTH.

PRESERVING NATURAL RESOURCES FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN USING THEM FOR THE PRESENT.

MANDATORY DRUG TESTING OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS IS JUSTIFIED.

THE PROTECTION OF SOCIETY’S HEALTH INTERESTS THROUGH BROAD-BASED MANDATORY TESTING FOR AIDS OUGHT TO BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PERSONAL PRIVACY RIGHTS.

TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DIE.

PHYSICIAN ASSISTANCE IN THE SUICIDE OF GRAVELY ILL PATIENTS OUGHT TO BE LEGALIZED.

SUICIDE OUGHT TO BE A CRIME.

RISKING HUMAN LIFE TO GAIN GREATER SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IS UNETHICAL.

GENETIC ENGINEERING IS IMMORAL.

CONTRACTS FOR SURROGATE CHILD-BEARING OUGHT BE ENFORCEABLE.

THE SCHOOL’S RIGHT TO SEARCH STUDENTS AND LOCKERS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN A STUDENT’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY.

THAT PUBLIC EDUCATION AFTER HIGH SCHOOL OUGHT TO BE A PRIVILEGE AND NOT A RIGHT.

HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’ RIGHT TO CONFIDENTIALITY IS OF GREATER VALUE THAN THEIR PARENTS’ RIGHT TO KNOW.

A LIBERAL ARTS CURRICULUM IS PREFERABLE TO AN EMPLOYMENT READINESS CURRICULUM IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS.

SCHOOL CENSORSHIP OF ACADEMIC MATERIAL IS HARMFUL TO THE EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS.

CENSORSHIP OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS BY SECONDARY SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS IS JUSTIFIED.

THE BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE GENDER EQUALITY IS TO RECOGNIZE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN.

THE SANCTITY OF LIFE OUGHT TO BE VALUED OVER THE QUALITY OF LIFE.

JUSTICE SHOULD ALWAYS BE TEMPERED BY MERCY.

COMPETITION IS SUPERIOR TO COOPERATION IN ACHIEVING EXCELLENCE.

NATIONAL INTEREST SHOULD BE VALUED OVER MORAL PRINCIPLE IN THE CONDUCT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

YOU CAN’T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT. IF YOU TRY YOU CAN GET WHAT YOU NEED.

THERE IS NO MEANING TO LIFE EXCEPT THE MEANING AN INDIVIDUAL GIVES IT.

IT IS BETTER TO BE A DISSATISFIED SOCRATES THAN A SATISFIED PIG.

THE ARTIST DOES MORE FOR SOCIETY THAN THE ENTREPRENEUR.

WE TREASURE WHAT WE EARN ABOVE WHAT WE ARE GIVEN.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5EHR7eOB2Y

Semarang 16 Mei 2012, bertempat di Krakatau Room Hotel Horison, Dinas Pariwisata Kota Semarang kembali mengadakan Pemilihan Duta Wisata Denok Kenang 2012. Sebanyak 45 pasang finalis yang sudah diaudisi dari seluruh Semarang berkompetisi pada malam itu. Pertama-tama acara dibuka dengan tarian Denok Deblong dari sebuah sanggar tari. Lalu dilanjutkan dengan parade seluruh finalis, mereka terlihat serasi mengenakan Beskap dan Kebaya.
Selain parade, pada malam itu juga diisi dengan peragaan busana oleh Intan Avantie. Kebaya-kebaya modern terlihat anggun dipakai oleh model di atas titian peraga.
Inilah saat yang ditunggu-tunggu oleh para peserta, pengumuman siapa saja yang masuk ke sepuluh besar Denok Kenang 2012, dan berhak melaju ke babak selanjutnya.
Setelah terpilih kesepuluh besar tersebut melakukan sesi tanya jawab. Di sini akan dilihat sejauh mana kemampuan public speaking, wawasan tentang pariwisata, dan juga bahasa Inggris. Sayangnya ada diantara finalis yang kemampuan bahasa Inggrisnya kurang, sehingga ketika mendapatkan pertanyaan dan diharuskan menjawab dengan bahasa Inggris ada yang kesusahan. Walaupun tetap harus dihargai karena dia sudah berusaha menjawab sebisanya. Proses tanya jawab ini berlangsung 2 sesi, ketika sepuluh besar dan lima besar.

Ini dia pemenangnya:
Kenang 2012: Rifky Adiyana
Denok 2012:  Siska Nuraini.
Juara 2: Rino Dwi Akbar dan Ferbiyana Wahyuning Tyas.
Juara 3: Adtya Ibnu Anggara dan Ruhaniah

Ada pula pemenang atribut:
Juara Integensia : Ade Sony Noviyanto
Juara Fotogenik : Putu Lina Maranita Dewi
Favorti : Teguh Winarso
Juara kepribadian : Muhammad Lutfi Agizal

Selamat untuk semua pemenang, sampai bertemu lagi di Pemilihan Denok Kenang selanjutnya. Salam Duta Wisata!
http://www.indopageants.blogspot.com

Pagelaran puncak grand final Cak dan Ning Surabaya 2012 berakhir, Minggu (27/05) dinihari.

Bertempat di Balai Kota Surabaya, ajang tahunan di Kota Surabaya ini berhasil memilih Rio dan Rina, sebagai Cak dan Ning Suroboyo 2102, sekaligus sebagai Duta Wisata Surabaya.

Kedua pemenang, selain berhak atas hadiah Rp 5 juta per orang, juga membawa pulang masing-masing 1 unit sepeda motor dan hadiah bingkisan lainnya.

Walikota Surabaya, Tri Rismaharini menyatakan, pemenang Cak dan Ning tahun ini diharapkan benar-benar mampu untuk menjadi duta wisata dan membawa nama baik Kota Surabaya.

“Saya ucapkan selamat dan saya apresiasi yang tinggi kepada para pemenang,” ujar Risma.

Pemenang Cak dan Ning Surabaya :

Kategori berbakat : Cak Bayu & Ning cecilia
Kategori Persahabatan : Cak Abdullah & Ning Rina
Kategori Favorit : Cak Brian & Ning Elvira
Wakil III : Cak Khadafi & Ning Amanda
Wakil II : Cak Erendra & Ning Irin
Wakil I : Cak Brian & Ning Elvira
Duta Wisata Surabaya 2012 : Cak Rio & Ning Rina

http://www.lensaindonesia.com