Prepared Motions

Politani English Olympics

1. Education :
This House Would Ban Uniforms at School
POINT

If children are religious, they should be allowed to wear the clothes that express their religion,
but school a uniform can often restrict this. Religious beliefs can be extremely valuable and
important to many children, giving their lives a great deal of meaning and structure and inspiring
them to work hard and behave compassionately in a school environment. Some religions place a
great deal of value upon worn symbols of faith, such as turbans, headdresses and bracelets. When
a school demands that a child remove these symbols, it inadvertently attacks something central to
that child’s life. This may cause the child to see her school and her faith as mutually exclusive
institutions[1]. Vulnerable young people should not be forced into an adversarial relationship
with their school, as close, collaborative involvement with teaching and learning techniques will
greatly effect a child’s ability to adapt, learn and acquire new skills in the future.

For example, school skirts are often not long enough for Muslim girls, who believe that they
should cover most of their bodies. To allow children to express their religions, we should get rid
of school uniforms.

COUNTERPOINT

Some schools do have different rules for religious students, so that those students can express
their beliefs. For example, a school might let Muslim girls wear some of their religious items of
clothing mixed with the school uniform (e.g., Reading Girls' School)[2].
 2. Environment :

This House Believe That Animals should have rights like human

POINT

They do, just as human animals do. Without rights that are enshrined in law, there is nothing to
stop up being harmed and exploited.

Animals can suffer, like us, they have personalities and preferences like us, and they do not wish
to be harmed, like us. Their rights should not be based on a human perception of their
intelligence or worth. Our own prejudices should not matter when it comes to the rights of
animals, just as they should not matter when it comes to ensuring that the rights of marginalized
people are conferred and upheld.

Simply, it is the right thing to do. Animals are not ours to harm and abuse just because we can.
They are not our playthings, but sentient beings in their own right.

But there is a wider impact of conferring rights on animals, one that benefits people, too. Human
rights would be enhanced because the same forces that give rise to racism, sexism, and hatred of
– or prejudice toward – marginalized groups also give rise to the systematic exploitation of
animals. This prejudiced worldview stems from the notion of a biological hierarchy with
European straight white males at the top, and below them, women, people of colour, people with
a disability, and animals. Conferring rights on animals helps demolish this hierarchy, dismantles
this old, destructive way of categorizing and ranking individuals, and helps achieve justice for
all.

COUNTERPOINT

For so long, we have treated animals like property, not like beings, and much of our way of life
is predicated on us doing whatever we want to them. While we are incrementally moving
towards a few rights for some animals, it’s wonderful to imagine what the world would be like if
animals were afforded full legal rights.

If that was the case, we wouldn’t eat them, breed them for milk or confine them for eggs. Factory
farming would end, slaughterhouses would close and we would all be vegan. Without consuming
animal fats and protein, some or our biggest killers – heart disease, diabetes and hypertension –
would be dramatically reduced. With reduced sickness, there would be a boost to the economy.

Because we wouldn’t be wasting precious antibiotics trying to keep sick animals alive inside
factory farms, we would limit the dangers of antibiotic resistance. And since three quarters of
emerging infectious diseases come from animals, we would drastically reduce the risk of
pandemics, too.
Without factory farming, our impact on the Earth would be much gentler. We’d reduce
deforestation, pollution and climate change. With everyone vegan, we could feed many more
people using less land, and that means people would not go hungry and nature would benefit,
too. With 68 percent of animal populations having been wiped out in the past 50 years, a massive
reduction in land use would redress that shocking annihilation.

No profit could be made from the lives and bodies of animals, so we would not wear their skins
or keep them as ‘pets’. This is not to say we would have to throw away our old leather jacket or
turn out our dogs to fend for themselves. Nothing can protect the cows whose skin that coat once
was, and we have a duty of care to the animals already here, but we would not skin more cows or
breed more dogs.

3. Social :

This house believe that sex education should be given earlier to students

POINT

Despite our shock at the recent report of sexual abuse against a kindergarten student allegedly
perpetrated by outsourced cleaning staff at the Jakarta International School (JIS) in South
Jakarta, the case could unfortunately be merely the tip of the iceberg, as there could be many
other such unreported incidents across the country. This reveals the urgent need for safer
environments and more supportive schools, including by initiating sex education at school and at
home where children spend most of their time. Regardless of research on the benefits of starting
sex education at an early age, and definitely before puberty, we must also realize the numerous
barriers to providing sustainable sex education to young people. Taboos, myths and
misunderstandings related to sexuality and sex frequently hinder many parents and teachers in
discussing these topics in a constructive way; many are not comfortable and not well-equipped to
talk about such issues with young people. Worse, high ranking officials, religious leaders and
community leaders share misinformation regarding sex education and express their objections to
wider sex education, particularly in schools. Education and Culture Minister Muhammad Nuh
has said that children do not need formal sex education as they learn such information naturally.
Such a response denies children, adolescents and young people their right to adequate
information, knowledge and a healthy environment '€” including the skills to protect themselves
from sexual abuse. Of course, there are also researchers and activists who have proposed a more
mature approach, including the urgent need for earlier, wider and more comprehensive sex
education, to equip children and adolescents with relevant information about sex, sexuality,
reproduction and relationships. Numerous studies have shown that early and comprehensive
education on these issues positively impacts young people. Such education prepares and better
equips children, adolescents and young people to grow healthily and responsibly as well as
reducing the harmful consequences of rampant myths and misconceptions related to sex and
sexuality, such as sexual abuse, teen pregnancy, unwanted and unplanned pregnancies and the
spread of sexually transmitted infections.
COUNTERPOINT

The internet provides a vast amount of easily accessible information about sex, of varying
degrees of quality. Most children in the west now have access to the internet and are therefore
likely to have access to this information on sex, or at least educational materials on sex even if
the child’s access to the internet is controlled.

Given that it is impossible to prevent children from accessing this information if they really want
to, it makes sense to present it to them in an organised and accurate fashion. Rather than
allowing children to find information on their own through what may well be unreliable
resources it is necessary that they should get good reliable information. That this information
when there is safe sex education comes from the school means that the children know that they
information is reliable. They can then use this information to help them decide how reliable any
further information they may find from other sources is.

The problem with mandatory sex education is precisely that it presents that information in an
organised fashion – by the state. In doing so the right of the parents to raise their children in
accordance with their structure of beliefs is usurped.

4. Politic :

This house would give death penalty to corruptors

POINT

Nowadays, the corruption in Indonesia is rapidly increased. For the corruptors, it is not law infringement,
but it is a habitual activity. Indonesia becomes a country which has many corruptors in rank 16 in Asia
Pacific. Why is it happen in Indonesia? Will the government solve the problem? To solve that problem,
the government should give the corruptors the death penalty. The corruptors should be given the death
penalty because of a lot of reasons. Some of them are corruptors cause difficulties for economic
development, democracy and good governance and increase financial burden for pauper. The first
reason why the corruptors should be given the death penalty is because they cause difficulties for
economic development. Economic specialist argued that the first factor of backwardness of economic
development in Africa and Asia is caused by corruption which is organized as capital investment. Because
of that reason, therefore the corruptors should be given the death penalty. Some people do not agree
with this punishment, because they think that corruption is not kind of killing or raping criminal, and
death the death penalty is only for someone who kills someone else. However, the corruptors also kill
someone else, especially for pauper. The corruptors also increase the destitution in Indonesia and make
the society starve to death. The second reason is because the corruptors cause difficulties for democracy
and good governance. In politic system, corruption causes democracy and good governance by the way
bite into the formal process. Corruption in general election and legislative of corporation alleviate
accountability and delegation of formation of policy. Generally, corruption undermines institution ability
from the government, because of disobedience procedure. In the same time, corruption causes
government legitimation and democracy, such as, confidence and tolerance.

China is the world's most active death penalty country; according to Amnesty International, China
executes more people than the rest of the world combined each year. In December 2015, Mongolia
repealed the death penalty for all crimes and in June 2022 Kazakhstan abolished it completely. India
executes criminals rarely.

COUNTERPOINT

The lack of deterrent effect of criminal sanctions for the culprit causing the proliferation of perpetrators
of corruption on all fronts. Under penalty of death penalty for perpetrators of corruption is considered to
be one of the solutions deterrent for the perpetrators. Rules of the death penalty for perpetrators of
corruption still causes a lot of pros and cons on the premises. In connection with this, this paper will
outline the pros and cons of the existence of the implementation of the death penalty to cases of
corruption in Indonesia.

Corruption is one word that is quite popular in the community and has been the subject of daily
conversation. Nevertheless, there are still many people who do not know what corruption. In 2001 an
amendment to Act No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption Act No. 20 of 2001. In the new Act is
more described elements in the articles of the draft Criminal Law ( Criminal Code), which was originally
only mentioned only in Law No. 31 of 1999. In general, people understand corruption as something
merely state loss. Whereas in Law No. 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law No. 20 of 2001 on Corruption
Eradication, there are 30 kinds of corruption. All 30 types of corruption that can basically be grouped
into seven, namely: i) the financial losses of the State; ii) bribery; iii) embezzlement in office; iv)
extortion; v) skullduggery; vi) conflict of interest in procurement; and vii) gratification.

So, the death penalty for corruptors is not needed as a punishment if the state cannot enforce
regulations which are the basic law of the country. Because this will be a trigger for the incumbent ruler
to commit the next fraud and so on it becomes a cycle of repeated cases.

5. Entertaiment :

This house believes that kpop brings more harm than good

POINT

COUNTERPOINT

6. Technology :

This house would ban social media ( tiktok, instagram, twitter)

POINT

COUNTERPOINT