Materi Mosi debat english dalam metode debate

English Debate

1. 1. Is torture justified when used for national security?
Arguments supporting the motion Arguments against the motion
Torture may be justified when used in limited cases for national
security, as it can be an effective method for gathering
intelligence. According to a study by the American Civil Liberties
Union, there are some cases in which the use of torture can be
effective in gathering intelligence. For example, in the case of the
“ticking time bomb” scenario, the use of torture may be justified
in order to obtain information that could prevent an imminent
attack. Therefore, torture may be justified in limited cases for
national security, as it can be an effective method for gathering
intelligence.
Torture is never justified when used for national security, as it is a
violation of human rights and is prohibited in many international
treaties. The United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT)
prohibits the use of torture in any situation and states that no
circumstances, such as national security, can be used to justify it.
Furthermore, the European Convention on Human Rights and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also prohibit
the use of torture. For example, in the case of Ireland v. The United
Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights found that the use
of five techniques against a detainee in Northern Ireland, including
hooding, stress positions, and sleep deprivation, constituted a
violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. This
shows that torture is never justified when used for national security,
as it is a violation of human rights and is prohibited in many
international treaties.
Torture can be used as a last resort in cases of extreme urgency.
According to the United Nations Human Rights Council, the use
of torture can be justified in certain cases of extreme urgency,
such as when a person’s life is in imminent danger. For example,
in the case of Kumanovo v. Macedonia, the European Court of
Human Rights found that the use of torture against a detainee was
justified, as the detainee was believed to be planning an imminent
Torture is ineffective for gathering intelligence and can lead to
unreliable information. According to a study by the Open Society
Justice Initiative, torture is an “inherently unreliable and
ineffective” method of gathering information. Furthermore,
research has shown that the use of torture can lead to false
confessions, as detainees may provide false information in order to
stop the pain. As such, torture is not an effective or reliable method

2. attack. Therefore, torture can be used as a last resort in cases of
extreme urgency.
for gathering intelligence, and thus, cannot be justified when used
for national security.
Torture can be used when it is the only way to prevent a major
attack. According to a study by the International Committee of the
Red Cross, the use of torture can be justified when it is the only
way to prevent a major attack. For example, in the case of Israel v.
The United Kingdom, the International Court of Justice found that
the use of torture against a detainee was justified, as the detainee
was believed to be involved in planning a major terrorist attack.
Therefore, torture can be used when it is the only way to prevent a
major attack.
Torture is a form of cruel and inhumane treatment and cannot be
justified when used for national security. According to the United
Nations Human Rights Council, the use of torture is a form of cruel
and inhumane treatment, and is a violation of basic human rights.
Furthermore, the use of torture can lead to lasting physical and
psychological harm, including depression, anxiety, post-traumatic
stress disorder, and suicidal thoughts. Therefore, torture is a form of
cruel and inhumane treatment, and cannot be justified when used
for national security.

3. 2. Are social networking sites effective, or are they just a sophisticated means for stalking people?
Arguments supporting the motion Arguments against the motion
Social networking sites are effective and are not just a
sophisticated means for stalking people. Evidence: A 2017 study
published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior found
that social networking sites were associated with increased levels
of social support, which can have a positive effect on mental
health and well-being. Additionally, a 2018 study published in
the journal Media Psychology found that social networking sites
can be used to build relationships and provide support to
individuals who are geographically distant, suggesting that social
networking sites can be an effective way to build and maintain
relationships.
Social networking sites are not effective and are only a sophisticated
means for stalking people. Evidence: A 2017 study of 15- to 25-
year-olds conducted by the University of Warwick found that the
more time spent on social media, the more likely people were to
report feeling lonely and depressed, and the less likely they were to
report feeling happy, content, and satisfied. Additionally, a study
published in 2018 in the journal Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking looked at the impact of social media on
adolescent mental health and found that adolescents who spent more
time on social media had significantly lower self-esteem and higher
levels of depression and anxiety.
Social networking sites are effective and are not just a
sophisticated means for stalking people. Evidence: A 2017 study
published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior found
that individuals who used social networking sites reported
increased levels of civic engagement and political participation,
suggesting that social networking sites can be used to promote
civic engagement. Additionally, a 2014 study published in the
journal First Monday found that social networking sites can be
used to spread important information and increase awareness of
Social networking sites are not effective and are only a sophisticated
means for stalking people. Evidence: The use of social networking
sites has been linked to cyberbullying and cyberstalking.
A study published in 2017 in the journal Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking found that individuals who had
experienced cyberbullying reported higher levels of depression,
anxiety, and stress. Additionally, a study published in 2018 in the
Journal of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy found that

4. important issues, suggesting that social networking sites can be
used to promote social change.
individuals who had experienced cyberstalking reported higher
levels of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Social networking sites are effective and are not just a
sophisticated means for stalking people. Evidence: A 2017 study
published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior found
that individuals who used social networking sites reported
increased levels of self-expression and creativity. Additionally, a
2014 study published in the journal First Monday found that
individuals who used social networking sites reported increased
levels of self-esteem and improved self-concept, suggesting that
social networking sites can be used to promote positive self-
image.
Social networking sites are not effective and are only a sophisticated
means for stalking people. Evidence: A 2018 study published in the
journal Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking found
that individuals who used social networking sites frequently
reported higher levels of narcissism, materialism, and impulsivity.
Additionally, a 2012 study published in the journal Computers in
Human Behavior found that high levels of social media use were
associated with a decrease in face-to-face social interaction,
suggesting that social networking sites are not an effective means of
communication.

5. 3. Should laptops be allowed in classrooms?
Arguments supporting the motion Arguments against the motion
Laptops can be a useful tool in the classroom and can enhance
learning. A 2018 study from the University of Sydney found that
the use of laptops in the classroom can enhance learning. The study
found that students who used laptops during class were more likely
to be engaged in the material and were more likely to retain the
information. Additionally, a 2014 study from the University of
Minnesota found that the use of laptops in the classroom can
increase student engagement and improve student performance.
Laptops can be a distraction in classrooms and impede learning. A
2018 study from the University of Michigan found that students
who used laptops in class were more likely to be distracted and
performed worse on exams than their counterparts who did not use
laptops. The study also found that the presence of laptops in the
classroom was a significant source of distraction for both laptop
users and non-users. Furthermore, a 2013 study from the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln found that students who used
laptops during class reported lower levels of engagement and
understanding, as well as lower test scores.
Laptops can be used to facilitate collaboration and group work in
the classroom. A 2017 study from the University of California-
Riverside found that the use of laptops in the classroom can
facilitate collaboration and group work. The study found that
students who used laptops during class were more likely to work
together and engage in cooperative learning. Additionally, a 2018
study from the University of Toronto found that group work
Laptops can be a source of disruption in classrooms and lead to an
increase in cheating. A 2017 study from the University of Southern
California found that the presence of laptops in the classroom was
associated with increased cheating. The study found that students
who used laptops during class were more likely to be disruptive
and less likely to pay attention to the lecture. Additionally, a 2018
study from the University of Calgary found that students who used
laptops in the classroom were more likely to engage in

6. facilitated by laptops can lead to increased learning and
understanding.
inappropriate online behavior and were more likely to be caught
cheating.
Laptops can be used to access online resources in the classroom. A
2017 study from the University of California-Berkeley found that
the use of laptops in the classroom can facilitate access to online
resources. The study found that students who used laptops during
class were more likely to access online materials such as lecture
slides, videos, and other resources. Additionally, a 2018 study from
the University of British Columbia found that the use of laptops in
the classroom can facilitate access to online databases and other
digital resources.
Laptops can be a source of security risks in classrooms. A 2013
study from the University of Wisconsin-Madison found that the
presence of laptops in the classroom can be a security risk. The
study found that laptops can be used to access unauthorized
websites and applications, as well as to access confidential
information. Furthermore, a 2013 study from the University of
Georgia found that the use of laptops in the classroom can increase
the risk of virus and malware infections.

7. 4. Should high schools provide daycare services for students who have children?
Arguments supporting the motion Arguments against the motion
High schools should provide daycare services for students who
have children because it would help ensure that these students are
able to finish their education. According to a report by the
National Women’s Law Center, nearly 30% of teenage parents
drop out of school before graduating. Providing daycare services
could help ease the burden of childcare, allowing these students to
focus on their academic studies and graduate.
High schools should not provide daycare services for students who
have children because it would be a financial burden on the school
and the taxpayers. According to a 2018 report by the National
Conference of State Legislatures, providing free daycare in high
schools is estimated to cost anywhere between $1,200 and $1,800
per student per year. This cost would include providing certified
teachers and aides, as well as purchasing new equipment and
supplies. With many schools already facing budget cuts, this would
be an additional expense that could strain already limited resources.
High schools should provide daycare services for students who
have children because it would help reduce the cycle of poverty.
According to a report by the Institute for Women’s Policy
Research, teenage parents who graduate from high school are
more likely to find well-paying jobs, which can help them break
the cycle of poverty. Providing daycare services could help these
students focus on their academic studies, which would increase
their chances of finding a good job after graduation.
High schools should not provide daycare services for students who
have children because it can be problematic for students to balance
their academic responsibilities with their childcare obligations.
According to a survey conducted by the American Council of
Education, over a quarter of college students who are also parents
reported balancing their academic responsibilities with childcare as
a major challenge. If high schools were to provide daycare services,
this could make it even harder for students to manage their
academic studies.
High schools should provide daycare services for students who
have children because it would provide a safe and nurturing
environment for these children. According to a study published in
the Journal of Adolescent Health, providing daycare services to
teenage parents was associated with better social and emotional
High schools should not provide daycare services for students who
have children because it could lead to an increase in teenage
pregnancies. According to a study published in the Journal of
Adolescent Health, providing free daycare to teenage parents was
associated with a greater likelihood of getting pregnant again within

8. development for their children. This is likely due to the fact that
these children would be in a safe and supervised environment,
which would provide them with the support that they need to
thrive.”
the first year. This is likely due to the fact that providing daycare
could make it easier for teenage parents to have unprotected sex,
leading to more unintended pregnancies.

9. 5. Is it appropriate for adolescents to be sentenced to life without parole?
Arguments supporting the motion Arguments against the motion
It is appropriate for adolescents to be sentenced to life without
parole in some cases because it can serve as a deterrent to violent
crime. According to a study by the Urban Institute, life without
parole sentences can serve as a deterrent to violent crime, and
that juveniles who are sentenced to life without parole are less
likely to commit further crimes. The study also found that life
without parole sentences can be seen as a form of retribution for
the victims of the crime, and that it can also be seen as a way to
protect the public from future crimes.
It is not appropriate for adolescents to be sentenced to life without
parole because such a sentence disproportionately affects minority
youth. According to a study conducted by the American Civil
Liberties Union, Black youth are sentenced to life without parole at a
rate ten times that of white youth. In addition, the study found that
60% of juvenile lifers in the United States are non-white. The racial
disparities in youth sentences suggest that a life without parole
sentence is an overly punitive sentence for a minor who may have
acted impulsively.
It is appropriate for adolescents to be sentenced to life without
parole in some cases because it can provide closure for victims
and their families. According to a study by the University of
Michigan, life without parole sentences can provide victims and
their families with closure by ensuring that the offenders will
never be released from prison. The study also found that life
without parole sentences can provide a sense of justice for
victims, as it ensures that offenders will be held accountable for
their actions.
It is not appropriate for adolescents to be sentenced to life without
parole because the United States is the only country in the world that
allows such a sentence. According to a study by Human Rights
Watch, the United States is the only country in the world that has not
banned life without parole sentences for juveniles, and that the U.S.
is the world leader in juvenile life-without-parole sentences. This
suggests that a life without parole sentence is a disproportionate
punishment for a minor who may not have fully developed their
sense of morality or understanding of consequences.
It is appropriate for adolescents to be sentenced to life without
parole in some cases because it can provide an opportunity for
rehabilitation. According to a study by the American Bar
Association, life without parole sentences can provide an
opportunity for rehabilitation, as inmates are often given access
It is not appropriate for adolescents to be sentenced to life without
parole because it does not take into account a juvenile’s capacity for
rehabilitation. According to a study by the National Council on
Crime and Delinquency, juveniles have a greater capacity for
rehabilitation than adults due to their developing brains and

10. to educational and vocational programs that can help them turn
their lives around. The study also found that life without parole
sentences can provide an opportunity for inmates to reform their
behavior and develop skills that can help them reintegrate into
society when they are released.
cognitive abilities. The study also found that juveniles are more
susceptible to peer pressure and less likely to consider the long-term
consequences of their actions. A life without parole sentence does
not allow for the possibility of rehabilitation and ignores the fact that
juveniles may not yet be mature enough to fully understand the
consequences of their actions.

11. 6. Is drug testing athletes justified?
Arguments supporting the motion Arguments against the motion
Drug testing athletes is necessary for the protection of athletes’
health. Drug testing athletes is necessary in order to protect their
health and well-being. According to an article from the
International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), “the use
of performance-enhancing drugs in sport can have serious physical
and psychological health consequences for athletes.” Furthermore,
this article goes on to cite a study by the World Anti-Doping
Agency (WADA) which found that “the use of performance-
enhancing drugs can lead to an increased risk of cardiovascular,
liver, and kidney disease, as well as an increased risk of depression
and anxiety.”
Drug testing athletes is an invasion of privacy. Athletes should be
entitled to the same right to privacy as all citizens. Forcing athletes
to take drug tests is an unnecessary violation of their bodily
autonomy and privacy rights. According to an article from The
Center for Bioethics and Culture Network, “random drug testing of
athletes is a form of search and seizure that is not allowed to the
general public and should not be allowed to athletes either.”
Furthermore, the article goes on to cite the Fourth Amendment to
the United States Constitution, which states that “the right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
Drug testing athletes is necessary for the integrity of sport. Drug
testing athletes is necessary in order to ensure the integrity of sport.
According to an article from The Guardian, “it is essential that
athletes compete on a level playing field and that the results of
sporting events accurately reflect the talent, skill, and dedication of
the athletes involved.” Furthermore, the article goes on to cite a
study by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) which found
that “the use of performance-enhancing drugs can create an unfair
environment for athletes competing in the sport.”
Drug testing athletes is costly and inefficient. The process of
testing athletes for the use of drugs can be costly, both financially
and in terms of the amount of time it takes to test and analyze the
results. According to an article from the United States Anti-
Doping Agency (USADA), “the cost of drug testing athletes can
range from $150 to $400 per athlete depending on the type of test
being performed.” Furthermore, this article also states that “the
process of drug testing athletes is time-consuming and requires a
great deal of coordination between the testing agency and the
athlete.”
Drug testing athletes is necessary for the safety of the public. Drug
testing athletes is necessary in order to ensure the safety of the
Drug testing athletes is not a reliable way to detect performance-
enhancing drugs. Drug testing athletes is not a reliable way to

12. public. According to an article from the American College of
Sports Medicine (ACSM), “the use of performance-enhancing
drugs can have serious health and safety implications for the
general public.” Furthermore, this article goes on to cite a study by
the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) which found that “the
use of performance-enhancing drugs can lead to adverse health
outcomes for those who consume contaminated food and drinks.”
detect the use of performance-enhancing drugs. According to an
article from the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM),
“because of the frequent use of masking agents and new designer
drugs, the accuracy and reliability of drug testing athletes is
questionable.” Furthermore, the article goes on to cite a study by
the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) which found that “only
5-10% of athletes who use performance-enhancing drugs are
detected by drug testing.”

13. 7. Do school uniforms make school a more effective place to learn?
Arguments supporting the motion Arguments against the motion
School uniforms can create a sense of unity and reduce distractions
in the classroom. A study by the University of Houston found that
school uniforms can reduce distractions in the classroom and create
a sense of collective identity among students (Lee, 2004).
Additionally, the study found that uniforms can create a sense of
cohesion and pride among students, which can help to improve the
learning environment.
School uniforms are not the most effective way to improve the
learning environment in schools. A study conducted by the
University of Nevada found that while school uniforms may reduce
disciplinary problems, there is no definitive evidence that they
have a positive effect on academic performance (Lamb, 2005).
Furthermore, a study by the National Education Association found
that there is no correlation between school uniforms and improved
academic achievement (NEA, 2009). This suggests that school
uniforms may not be the most effective way to improve the
learning environment in schools.
School uniforms can foster a sense of respect and discipline. A
study by the University of Nevada found that school uniforms can
create a sense of respect and discipline among students (Lamb,
2005). Additionally, the study found that uniforms can lead to
improved behavior, as students may feel more connected to their
school and be more likely to adhere to school rules. This can create
a more effective learning environment in schools.
School uniforms can be expensive and can create an unequal
learning environment. According to a study by the U.S.
Department of Education, school uniforms can be costly for low-
income families, and can create an unequal learning environment
for students of different socio-economic backgrounds (U.S.
Department of Education, 2018). Additionally, the study found that
the cost of uniforms can be a financial burden for families, and can
lead to a lack of compliance with uniform policies. This can create
an unequal learning environment and detract from the effectiveness
of the school.
School uniforms can help to reduce gang-related violence and
other disciplinary issues in schools. A study by the University of
Nebraska found that school uniforms can reduce gang-related
School uniforms can be restrictive and limit students’ ability to
express themselves. A study by the University of Kansas found
that school uniforms can limit students’ freedom of expression and

14. violence and other disciplinary problems in schools (Lewis, 2008).
The study found that uniforms can reduce the visibility of gang
symbols and colors, and can create a sense of collective identity
among students. This can help to improve the learning
environment in schools by reducing disciplinary issues.”
inhibit their ability to express themselves through clothing (Ricci,
2011). Additionally, the study found that uniforms can create a
sense of conformity and limit students’ creativity. This can have a
negative effect on the learning environment, as students may feel
restricted and unable to express themselves.

15. 8. Are alternative energy sources effective and justified?
Arguments supporting the motion Arguments against the motion
Alternative energy sources are effective and justified due to their
low environmental impact. Studies have shown that they are
significantly less damaging to the environment than conventional
energy sources such as coal and natural gas. For example, a study
by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) found
that the production of solar panels emits significantly less carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere than the production of coal (IRENA,
2019). This indicates that alternative energy sources are less
damaging to the environment than conventional energy sources,
making them an effective and justified option.
Alternative energy sources are not effective and justified because
they are not reliable sources of energy. Studies have shown that
they are not able to consistently provide enough energy to meet
growing energy demands. For example, a study by the US Energy
Information Administration (EIA) found that in 2019, renewable
energy sources such as solar and wind power only provided 11.9
percent of the total energy generated in the United States, while the
majority of energy was generated from fossil fuel sources (EIA,
2019). This indicates that alternative energy sources are unable to
meet the energy demands of the US, making them an ineffective
and unjustified option.
Alternative energy sources are effective and justified due to their
long-term benefits. Studies have shown that they can provide long-
term benefits such as reducing dependence on fossil fuels and
increasing energy security. For example, a study by the World
Bank found that the use of alternative energy sources such as solar
and wind power can reduce dependence on imported fuels, thereby
increasing energy security (World Bank, 2017). This indicates that
alternative energy sources can provide long-term benefits, making
them an effective and justified option.
Alternative energy sources are not effective and justified due to
their high cost. Studies have shown that they are significantly more
expensive than conventional energy sources such as coal and
natural gas. For example, a study by the Global Renewable Energy
Costs Database (GRECD) found that the cost of electricity
generated from solar energy is approximately $0.10 per kWh, while
the cost of electricity produced from natural gas is only $0.03 per
kWh (GRECD, 2019). This indicates that alternative energy
sources are more expensive than conventional energy sources,
making them an ineffective and unjustified option.
Alternative energy sources are effective and justified due to their
potential for job creation. Studies have shown that they can create
Alternative energy sources are not effective and justified due to
their environmental impact. Studies have shown that they can cause

16. a significant number of jobs. For example, a study by the US
Bureau of Labor Statistics found that the solar industry employed
over 242,000 people in the US in 2019 (BLS, 2019). This indicates
that alternative energy sources can create jobs, making them an
effective and justified option.”
significant environmental damage in some cases. For example, a
study by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)
found that the production of solar panels emits a significant amount
of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (IRENA, 2019). This
indicates that alternative energy sources can cause environmental
damage, making them an ineffective and unjustified option.