CLOSING OPPOSITE ; NUNING YUNINGSIH

Ladies and gentlemen, we need to understand the characaterzation of family that the OG
bring in this debate is not enough. Why? Because they only explain to you that the interest of
family is just to achive the happiness but we believe family interest is to contribute towards
their neighborhood. Which in this case, they don't bring any burden among their
neighborhood.
Second, the mechanism that OG bring in this debate is not good enough to restric the amount
of children a family can have. Why? Because they didn't explain to you, how their
mechanism are going to work and why is it better than the status quo that has provided the
idea of children restriction itself.

Jump to my rebutals.
1. OG told to you that this restrictipn could give stable financial income towards those family
who coming from low financial income family. But we believe the stable income isn't
decided by how many children you have but it depends on how you can manage your money
well and the knowledge of investment. Let's take a look to several family that has many
children. Halilinyar family has many children, they come from poor family at first but they
still can survive from their poverty and they become rich at the end of the day becuase they
can manage their money as good as posible and they are smart in investing their money. So
their argument are not acceptable in this debate.
2. CG told to you that this restriction is able to prevent the posibility of over population. But
what you need to understand over population is never happen in europe even if they don't
apply any restriction of how many children a family can have. But the citizen of europe still
realize how's important amount of children that they should have. Because at the very first
beginning, they have got knowledge about how to build an ideal family and also their mindset
about children that it would be better to have children that is adjuated by the ability of parents
themselves in terms of their financial income.
3. OG told to you that their mechanism are gping to be better to be applied bacuse it can give
more change for people to not have more than two children. We said, their mechanism
doesn't give any good soultion towards the idea of restricting the family to have more than
two children. Why? because we believe they don't understand what is actully the main
problem that exist understatus quo. We believe the main problem that exist behind status quo
isn't about over psopulation but it's about the posibility of stunting because the poor family
keep making children while their financial income cannot facilitate their children basic needs
such as food, health care, education, and so on and so forth.
Lastly, we believe both government benches have failed in this debate because of several
consideration
PP1. Their mechanism are not good enough
2. Their argumen have many weakness like i've explained in my rebutals
3. They don't provide the solution for the worse case scenario that could exisxt because of
their mechanism

Comparing to OO
OO told to you that they are not going to restrict the amount of children a family can have
because they don't want break their human rights but we said, human rights is not just the
main point of this restriction, thats why as CO, we are going to bring the different problems.
It is the possibility of lack human resources. Let's take a look to Japan and the other europe
countries that have less amount of citizenship. They realize that their human resources are
lack to build up their nation in the future. That's why, they create policies to every family to
have more children. Because they believe those children will be the next generation who will
build the nation in the future. Old generation are not immortal that's why we need
regeneration. More children can be the solution. Why it will not create any harm? We believe
for those countries, they could provide the basic needs for those family who want to have
more children. For example, Denmark, its government will give money and insurance for
those parents and their children
We believe our solutions that we bring in this debate are going to be better than our opening.
Why? Because Sri has explained to you that we are going to give education about how
importance to have children and how to build a good family. This policy will be applied to
those couple who want to married. After 5 or 7 years of marriex. we are gling to do
evaluation to them if they are ready to have more children. Of they don't pass the evalution,
we still give them opportunity to learn again. We are going to give them course that will
teach then about being a family and having children. The test we are going to give is family
assesment.

For those reasons, we believe we are going to win this debate and as closing opposition, we
are proud to oppose the motion