Read more
English Debate
- The topic that’s going to be debated is called motion.
- There will be two teams in a debate: government/affirmative team (supporting the motion) and opposition/negative team (opposing the motion).
- Each team consists of three speakers. There are first, second, and third speakers. There is also a reply speaker whose roles can be taken by the first or second speaker.
- The first/second/third speaker has seven minutes to deliver their speech, while a reply speaker has four minutes. Additional 20 seconds are given if speakers cannot finish their speech in the given time.
- The turn in the debate is: First speaker of government team > first speaker of opposition team > second speaker of government team > second speaker of opposition team > third speaker of government team > third speaker of opposition team > reply speaker of opposition team > reply speaker of government team. Note that the one giving reply speech firstly is the opposition team.
- Interruption or Point of Information (POI) can be asked to the speaker delivering speech in minute 01-06. The time to give POI is only 15 seconds.
- Content of the arguments, structures (delivery and strategy), and manner are what counts to win the debate.
Opposing arguments
- The roles of the first speaker of the government team are setting the debate (in terms of scope, settings, stakeholders and definition), giving the background of the debate, and delivering the supporting argument.
- The roles of the first speaker of the opposition team are giving rebuttals (responses/negations) to the first speaker’s arguments and giving arguments from the negative views.
- The roles of the second speaker of the government/opposition team are similar to the roles of the first speaker of opposition team. They should give rebuttals toward the previous speaker’s arguments and extend the debate by bringing new arguments or supporting the arguments of their previous speakers.
- The roles of the third speaker of the government/opposition team are giving rebuttals toward all previous speakers’ arguments and sum-up the debate. The third speakers should wrap the main arguments, compare them, and then show adjudicators why they deserve the upper hand.
- The roles of the reply speakers of both teams generally are similar to the role of the third speaker. However, a reply speaker is not allowed to give new responses or rebuttals.
THE SCHEME OF ASIAN PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Speaking Order and Time Duration
First Speaker of Government – 7 minutes
- Introduces and defines the motion.
- Explains the Government's stance.
- Presents the first argument.
First Speaker of Opposition – 7 minutes
- Rebuts the Government's first argument.
- Explains the Opposition's stance.
- Presents the first argument.
Second Speaker of Government – 7 minutes
- Rebuts the Opposition's first argument.
- Presents the second Government argument.
Second Speaker of Opposition – 7 minutes
- Rebuts the Government's second argument.
- Presents the second Opposition argument.
Third Speaker of Government – 7 minutes
- Rebuts all remaining Opposition arguments.
- Summarises the Government's case.
- Reinforces why the Government should win.
Third Speaker of Opposition – 7 minutes
- Rebuts all remaining Government arguments.
- Summarises the Opposition's case.
- Reinforces why the Opposition should win.
Reply Speaker of Opposition – 4 minutes
- Compares both teams' cases.
- Explains why the Opposition has won.
- Does not introduce new arguments.
Reply Speaker of Government – 4 minutes
- Compares both teams' cases.
- Explains why the Government has won.
- Does not introduce new arguments.
Motion
This House Believes That Schools Should Ban Junk Food in School Canteens.
THE FIRST SPEAKER OF GOVERNMENT TEAM (7 Minutes)
Good morning, honourable adjudicators, respected Opposition team, ladies and gentlemen.
Today's motion is:
This House Believes That Schools Should Ban Junk Food in School Canteens.
By junk food, we mean foods and drinks that are high in sugar, salt, and unhealthy fats but low in nutritional value, such as crisps, chocolate bars, sugary soft drinks, and fried snacks.
Our team strongly supports this motion.
Schools are places where students learn not only academic subjects but also healthy habits. If schools continue selling junk food, students are more likely to consume unhealthy snacks every day.
As we saw in Episode 3, Joel often eats crisps and chocolate biscuits for lunch. Debbie reminds him that these foods are unhealthy. Although they argue, the discussion highlights an important issue: many teenagers choose unhealthy food simply because it is easily available.
Research has shown that excessive consumption of junk food increases the risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and poor concentration in class. Students who eat balanced meals generally have more energy and perform better academically.
Schools have a responsibility to create a healthy learning environment. Therefore, unhealthy food should not be sold in school canteens.
For these reasons, we proudly support today's motion.
Thank you.
THE FIRST SPEAKER OF OPPOSITION TEAM (7 Minutes)
Good morning, honourable adjudicators, respected Government team, ladies and gentlemen.
Our team strongly opposes today's motion.
Although healthy eating is important, banning junk food is not the best solution.
Students should learn how to make responsible choices instead of having choices removed from them. Healthy eating is about balance, moderation, and self-control.
In Episode 3, Pete explains that his sister stays healthy by eating three balanced meals a day and exercising regularly. She does not completely avoid food she enjoys. Instead, she practises a balanced lifestyle.
Furthermore, schools should educate students about nutrition rather than prohibit certain foods. Students will still be able to buy junk food outside school if they really want to.
Education creates lifelong healthy habits, while banning food only creates temporary restrictions.
Therefore, we reject today's motion.
Thank you.
THE SECOND SPEAKER OF GOVERNMENT TEAM (7 Minutes)
Thank you.
First, I would like to rebut the Opposition's argument.
The Opposition says students should simply make good choices. However, teenagers are easily influenced by advertising, peer pressure, and convenience. When unhealthy snacks are displayed everywhere in the school canteen, students are naturally tempted to buy them.
Schools already ban dangerous items such as cigarettes and alcohol because they are harmful. Likewise, schools should limit foods that contribute to unhealthy lifestyles.
Moreover, banning junk food does not mean students will have nothing to eat. Schools can provide healthier alternatives such as fruit, yoghurt, sandwiches, milk, fresh juice, and balanced meals.
At the end of Episode 3, Joel himself decides not to eat his crisps and chocolate. This shows that healthier choices are possible when students are encouraged.
Therefore, banning junk food supports students in making healthier decisions.
Thank you.
THE SECOND SPEAKER OF OPPOSITION TEAM (7 Minutes)
Thank you.
The Government assumes that banning junk food automatically creates healthy students. Unfortunately, this is not true.
Healthy lifestyles depend on education, family support, and personal responsibility.
If students never learn how to control themselves, they may simply buy unhealthy food after school.
Furthermore, schools should respect students' freedom of choice. Offering both healthy and less healthy options allows students to practise making responsible decisions.
As Pete tells Debbie, the goal is a balanced diet, not extreme dieting or completely avoiding certain foods.
Instead of banning junk food, schools should provide nutrition education and encourage healthier choices.
Therefore, our team rejects this motion.
Thank you.
THE THIRD SPEAKER OF GOVERNMENT TEAM (7 Minutes)
Thank you.
Throughout today's debate, the Opposition has argued that education alone is enough.
However, education and a healthy environment must work together.
Schools influence students every day. If schools continue selling junk food, they send mixed messages: teachers promote healthy eating in the classroom while the canteen sells unhealthy products.
Our team has demonstrated that banning junk food protects students' health, improves concentration, and encourages lifelong healthy habits.
The Opposition has not explained why schools should continue selling foods that they already know are unhealthy.
For these reasons, we strongly support today's motion.
Thank you.
THE THIRD SPEAKER OF OPPOSITION TEAM (7 Minutes)
Thank you.
Throughout this debate, our team has consistently argued that healthy habits come from education, not prohibition.
The Government focuses on removing unhealthy food, but it ignores the importance of teaching students responsibility.
In Episode 3, the conflict is solved not because someone banned chocolate or crisps, but because the characters communicated, understood one another, and learned about balanced nutrition.
Students should be trusted to make informed decisions with proper guidance.
Schools should educate—not control—students' food choices.
Therefore, we proudly oppose today's motion.
Thank you.
REPLY SPEAKER OF OPPOSITION TEAM (4 Minutes)
Ladies and gentlemen,
Today's debate is not about whether junk food is unhealthy.
We all agree that eating too much junk food is harmful.
The real question is whether banning junk food in schools is the best solution.
The Government focused on restrictions, while our team focused on education, responsibility, and balanced eating.
As Pete explained in Episode 3, healthy living comes from eating balanced meals and exercising regularly—not from banning every unhealthy food.
Our team believes education creates lasting change, whereas bans only provide temporary control.
For these reasons, the Opposition has won today's debate.
Thank you.
REPLY SPEAKER OF GOVERNMENT TEAM (4 Minutes)
Ladies and gentlemen,
Today, our team has consistently demonstrated that schools have a duty to protect students' health.
Schools cannot promote healthy lifestyles while simultaneously selling unhealthy food.
By removing junk food from school canteens, schools encourage better eating habits, improve students' concentration, and create a healthier learning environment.
The Opposition argued for personal responsibility, but responsibility develops more effectively when students are surrounded by healthy choices.
Just as Joel eventually chose healthier food in Episode 3, schools should help all students make better decisions.
Therefore, the Government proudly wins today's debate.
Thank you.
THE SCHEME OF ASIAN PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Motion
This House Believes That Technology Will Replace Conventional Teachers in the Future.
THE FIRST SPEAKER OF GOVERNMENT TEAM (7 Minutes)
Good morning, honourable adjudicators, respected opposition team, ladies and gentlemen.
Today, technology has become more and more important and offers students tremendous resources in the teaching and learning process. We can find a lot of information through computers, smartphones, artificial intelligence, and the Internet.
Our team strongly believes that technology will replace conventional teachers in the future. By "replace," we mean that technology will perform most teaching responsibilities, including delivering lessons, assessing students, providing learning materials, and giving personalised feedback.
Students can study almost every subject independently through online learning platforms, educational applications, AI tutors, and video tutorials. For example, universities such as The Open University and many online platforms offer high-quality distance learning programmes that enable students to study effectively without attending traditional classrooms.
Technology is available twenty-four hours a day, provides immediate feedback, and allows students to learn at their own pace. Students are no longer limited by classroom schedules or geographical location.
For these reasons, we firmly support today's motion.
Thank you.
THE FIRST SPEAKER OF OPPOSITION TEAM (7 Minutes)
Good morning, honourable adjudicators, respected Government team, ladies and gentlemen.
Our team strongly opposes today's motion.
Although technology is a valuable educational tool, it cannot replace teachers. Every student has different learning styles, abilities, personalities, and emotional needs. Teachers understand these differences and adjust their teaching methods accordingly.
For example, when students struggle to memorise English irregular verbs, teachers can use games, songs, storytelling, or group activities to make learning enjoyable. Teachers can explain difficult concepts in different ways until students understand them.
Furthermore, teachers inspire, motivate, and encourage students. They build confidence, promote teamwork, and create meaningful relationships that technology cannot provide.
Therefore, technology should assist teachers rather than replace them.
Thank you.
THE SECOND SPEAKER OF GOVERNMENT TEAM (7 Minutes)
Thank you.
First, I would like to rebut the Opposition's argument. They claim that technology cannot accommodate different learning styles. However, modern educational technology has become increasingly personalised.
E-learning provides a wide variety of learning resources for visual, auditory, and kinaesthetic learners. Students can access educational videos, interactive simulations, virtual laboratories, Learning Management Systems, educational games, and AI-powered tutors.
Artificial Intelligence can analyse students' learning progress, identify weaknesses, and recommend appropriate learning materials. Unlike human teachers, technology is always available without limitations of time or location.
Moreover, technology provides equal educational opportunities for students living in remote areas where qualified teachers may not be available.
Therefore, technology is becoming a more efficient and accessible teaching solution.
Thank you.
THE SECOND SPEAKER OF OPPOSITION TEAM (7 Minutes)
Thank you.
Learning is not only about gaining knowledge. Education also develops students' character, discipline, responsibility, empathy, and moral values.
Teachers do much more than explain lessons. They become role models who guide students to become responsible citizens.
For example, teachers can reward students who work hard and provide guidance or appropriate consequences when students fail to complete their responsibilities. They understand students' emotions, family backgrounds, and personal challenges.
Technology cannot comfort a student who has lost confidence or motivate someone facing emotional difficulties. Human interaction remains an essential part of education.
Therefore, technology cannot replace conventional teachers.
Thank you.
THE THIRD SPEAKER OF GOVERNMENT TEAM (7 Minutes)
Thank you.
Throughout this debate, the Opposition has focused mainly on emotional support and character education. However, today's motion concerns whether technology can replace teachers' instructional roles in the future.
We have demonstrated that technology already delivers lessons, assesses assignments, provides personalised learning pathways, and offers immediate feedback. Artificial Intelligence continues to improve and is becoming more capable of interacting naturally with learners.
The Opposition has not proven that these instructional responsibilities must always be performed by humans. Instead, they have shown only that teachers remain valuable today.
As technology advances, many educational tasks currently performed by teachers will become fully automated, making education more flexible, efficient, and accessible.
Therefore, our team proudly supports this motion.
Thank you.
THE THIRD SPEAKER OF OPPOSITION TEAM (7 Minutes)
Thank you.
Throughout today's debate, we have consistently demonstrated that technology is an excellent educational tool but not a replacement for teachers.
Teachers educate the whole person. They teach values, develop communication skills, encourage collaboration, solve classroom conflicts, and inspire students to achieve their dreams.
Technology provides information, but teachers provide wisdom, compassion, encouragement, and leadership.
Education is fundamentally a human process. Technology should be used as a learning tool, while teachers remain the centre of meaningful education.
Therefore, we strongly reject today's motion.
Thank you.
REPLY SPEAKER OF OPPOSITION TEAM (4 Minutes)
Ladies and gentlemen,
Today's debate is not about whether technology is useful. We all agree that technology has greatly improved education.
The real issue is whether technology can replace teachers.
The Government focused mainly on convenience, flexibility, and access to information. However, education is much more than delivering content.
Our team has shown that teachers build character, motivate students, develop emotional intelligence, and create meaningful human relationships. These qualities cannot be replaced by machines.
Technology is an excellent assistant, but it is not a teacher.
For these reasons, the Opposition has clearly won today's debate.
Thank you.
REPLY SPEAKER OF GOVERNMENT TEAM (4 Minutes)
Ladies and gentlemen,
Today, our team has consistently demonstrated that technology has transformed education.
Technology offers unlimited access to knowledge, personalised learning experiences, instant feedback, flexible schedules, and equal educational opportunities regardless of location.
Although teachers still play important roles today, technological development continues to reduce the need for conventional classroom instruction. Many teaching responsibilities have already been automated, and this trend will continue in the future.
The Opposition focused mainly on emotional support, while our motion concerns the replacement of teachers' instructional functions. On this point, our arguments were stronger and better supported.
Therefore, the Government proudly wins today's debate.
Thank you.
Jawablah pertanyaan-pertanyaan berikut dengan jujur dan bertanggungjawab!
| No. | Pertanyaan | Jawaban | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01. | Saya mengetahui arti kata-kata pada pada teks di atas |
Ya | Tidak |
| 02. | Saya bisa mengucapkan kata-kata sesuai dengan audio/video yang disajikan |
Ya | Tidak |
| 03. | Saya bisa memperagakan percakapan dengan membaca teks yang tersedia |
Ya | Tidak |
| 04. | Saya bisa memperagakan percakapan dengan sedikit membaca teks |
Ya | Tidak |
| 05. | Saya bisa memperagakan tanpa membaca teks |
Ya | Tidak |
| 06. | Saya bisa memperagakan tanpa membaca teks disertai dengan variasi baru atau pengembangan teks |
Ya | Tidak |
| 07. | Saya bisa membuat karya video terkait dengan percakapan yang diperagakan |
Ya | Tidak |
| 08. | Saya bisa membuat video dan telah disosialisasikan pada sosial media yang saya miliki |
Ya | Tidak |
Bila ada jawaban "Tidak", maka segera lakukan review pembelajaran, terutama pada bagian yang masih "Tidak".
Bila semua jawaban "Ya", maka Anda dapat melanjutkan ke pembelajaran berikutnya.
Buatlah jurnal harian untuk membantumu dalam mempercepat proses pembelajaran dengan menjawab soal evaluasi diri berikut ini.
- Apakah yang kamu telah pelajari pada bagian ini?
- Apa yang menarik pada sesi ini?
- Apa kendala yang kamu alami?
- Apa yang kamu lakukan untuk mengatasi kendala tersebut?
