Name

Motion

Karjongko
THW Ban any member of political party from owning media company
such as television, newspaper, and online news portal.

Position
Background

First speaker of government team

1) Contextualization
In Indonesia, there are some people who own media and join political
party in the same moment such as but not limited to Hary
Tanoesodibjo who has MNC MEDIA, Aburizal Bakrie who has TV
ONE and ANTV, and Surya Paloh who has METRO TV.
2) Problem
We think there is an unfair campaign between the parties who own
media and the parties who do not own media.
3) Stance
As the government team, what would like to prove that under the
democratic countries, the campaign should be fair and that is why we
want to ban people who own media to join a political party, and we
challenge the opposition team to prove to us why we should not ban
people who own media to join a political party.
4) Mechanism
I have three mechanism to apply our proposal
1st : we would like to create constitution for the people who have
media such as television, newspaper, and online news cannot join
political party.
2nd : we would like to announce and socialize to society.
3rd : we would like to punish people who break the rules. The
punishment will determine by the court.

Arguments

I have two arguments:

1) People who own media and join political party in the same
moment will break the code ethic of media.
2) Discrmination will happen when the government do not ban the
people who own the media in joining a political party.

(1st argument)

Title of argument:
Why people who own media and join political party in the same moment is
principly wrong?
Reason:
Lets analyze why this principly wrong. It because when the people who own
media, they join political party, they will become a member of that party.
When they become a member of political party, they will follow all of the
rules in that party. They will under control of the party. They will be controled
by the party. Their party will ask them to use their media in campaigning their
party. The portion of campaigning their own party is more often compares to
show the others in their media. At the end, the media who own by the party
would not give the fair news, because they only tend to show the good side of
the party not the bad one.
Evidence:
For example, METRO TV who own by Surya Paloh in the last two years
always gives the good news only to Jokowi and gives the bad news for
Prabowo. While on the other hand, TV ONE who own by Aburizal Bakrie
tend to always gives the good news for Prabowo and gives the bad news for
Jokowi. So, in the last two years, all the media that own by the partys
member, the news always siding to the one party. Secondly, those medias do
not give the real fact that happened in reality because those media is being
control by the party. On the othr hand, the ethic code of media should not be
interfered by others party. Media should be independent. They should stay
alone without any other influence.
Conclusion:
This prove to you when media owned by party, media will break down their
ethic code. So that is why the people who own media cannot join political
party.

(2nd argument)

Title of argument:
Why discrmination will happen when the government do not ban the people

who own the media in joining a political party?

Reason:
In election, there is a rule for campaigning the party. The party only have one
or two month to campaign their party by using pamphlete media, brochure,
leaflete, banner, sticker, t-shirt, pin, and flag. This kind of media only have or
two month to be used in campaign. So the party who do not have media such
as television, radio, newspaper, or news online will only have two months in
campaigning their party. While the one who have media they even have five
years to campaign their party.
Evidence:
For example, Gerindra, Hanura and Perindo can promote their party along the
years. So, there is discrimination between the party who do not have the
media and the party who have media. The party who own media, they have a
lot of time to campaign while the party who do not have media they only have
two months in campaigning their party. So thats why the small party such as
PKS, PKB, PPP, PAN they dont have any changes to promote their party to
society. So this small parties do not have chance to win the election. Now this
parties who can win the election is only the party who have media because
they can easily promote their party along the years.
Conclusion:
This condition shows that there is discrimination between the party who have
media and the party who dont have media. That is why we as government is
Position
Arguments

justify to ban the people who own media to join a political party.
Second speaker of government team
I have two arguments:
1) Banning the people who owned media in joining political party
will benefit the media
2) Allowing the people who own media to join political party will
increase the number of golput in Indonesia increase year by year
Title of argument:

Why banning the people who owned media in joining political party will
benefit the media?
Reason:
The reason why this will happen, because now this society do not trust to
media who take in one side and do not give fair news. The society will label
or judge that those kind of media do not give the fact that happened. They
only give news based on the parties need. That is why, now those media not
being trust by the society. When the society do not trust to the media, so those
media will bankrupt. They will not have any profit or money when there is no
viewer. So, those media will get harm or financially lost when they join
political party.
Evidence:
For example, in the time of campaign, people around Indonesia do not believe
with METRO TV and TV ONE, because both media are siding in one of the
party. People more believe with netral TV such as TVRI and KOMPAS TV. In
this time, those media has less viewer and exactly they will less profit. Even
though not to the extant of collaps, but still their icome was dropped down
significantly.
Conclusion:
So banning the people who own media to join political party will protect the
media from the lost profit. So applying this policy will benefit the media.
Title of argument:
Why allowing the people who own media to join political party will increase
the number of golput in Indonesia increase year by year?
Reason:
The number of golput in Indonesia increase year by year. in 1999: 7,3% ,
2004: 15,9% , 2009: 28% , 2014: 29% . The reason why the society do not
want to choose in election because there is no trust coming from them. They
do not trust the government because the government do not keep their
promise after being a president. They do not run their vision and mission and

their promise in their campaign. On the other hand, it is because the influence
media to society is wrong.
Evidence:
For example, when some media pro to prabowo, and some media pro to
jokowi in 2014, the news that present by TV ONE and METRO TV is not
based on the fact. What their purpose is only make their own candidate have a
good name or image in front of the society. That is why the truth broad by
those media is questionable. The media exaggerate the society not to trust the
media, society also do not trust with the candidate that they are campaigning
in media. As the result, the number of golput increase year by year. Thats
why we dont want to allow people who own media to join political party.
Because it will lead society not to choose on election. Even more, we think
the participant of society in election is very important. because when societies
participate and election they will know all of the programs that will be run by
the government. When the society choose, it showing that the societies also
want to support the government program in future. So, government programs
will run well.
Conclusion:
Finally it can be conclude that allowing the people who own media to join
political party will increase the number of golput in Indonesia increase year
by year
Note

Third speaker are not allowed to bring new argument, what you need to bring

For

is new analysis or new example and rebuttals. A new analysis and a new

Third speaker

example should be put in a clash of arguments. A clash of argument is the

main idea that both of the team debated upon or the major cases that
mostlikely both of the team are talking about along the debate. A clash of
argument mostly are talking about two things:
1. Justification
2. Benefit
Justification point usually brought by the first speaker, while the benefit point
usually being brought by the scond speaker.

The example of making a clash of argument:

There are two clash on this debate:
First, whether or not implementing this policy is justify, and second, which
policy that will brings more benefits.
In the first clash, there are two reasons why it is justify to support the
motion.
First, because it will stop media to break their code ethic in conveying their
news, and second it will stop the discrimination.
Why it will stop media to break their code ethic in conveying their news,, it is
becauseblablablabla
Never did the negative team responses to our idea, but even if yes they rebut,
their rebutle is only mention.blabla..blabla..which is exatly not
enough to crumble down our argument, because we have already explain
further by saying..blablablabla
That is why, we win on this point.
Second, why it will stop the discrimination because..blablablabla
How did the negative team trying to negate, they say blablablawhich
is, it is imposible to be happened because blablablaand what actually
their argument is only aboutblablablawe already tople down their
argument by saying blabla..blaand unfortunately, no response back from
them to us. So, we think we win this point.
Second clash, which policy that will brings more benefits.
There are two benefits that we will have. Number onebla..blabla..bla
and number twoblabla..blabla
First benefit why this will hapen because..bla..blablaand what negative
team propose to usthey say blablablabut never did they prove to us
why that will hapenwe think the benefit of the negative team would not be
happened becausebla..blablaso we win this idea
Second benefit, we sayblablablaand again and again, the negative
team mis undertand responding our arguments, because they response by
sayingbalblabla..blawhich is, it is exactly is not our purpose, what

we want is thatblablabla..blaeven more their example is

invalid.we are talking about blablablablabut their example is
blablablablathat clearly not match with our idea.
In conclusion, we should win this debate and get bring the trophy home.
Note for

The first speaker mostly brings three things:

The first

1. Why urgent? It will be shown in the backgrownd by showing what is

Speaker

the problem, why the problem is so big that need to be soved soon.
2. Why justify to apply your proposal?
3. Why your proposal is the only solution we have, and even if yes there

Note for
The second
Speaker

TASK

are other solution, why your solution is the best one compared others.
The second speaker must brings the harm and benefits for all the actors
involved in debate, it can be:
1. Society
2. Government
3. Company
4. Family
5. Children
6. Feminist
7. Religions
8. Religious leader
9. LGBT
10. Environment, and other actors that might involved in the debate.
All debaters, wajib nulis ide first dan second positve dan negative idea
disetiap mosi yang sudah di bahas mulai next pertemuan seperti yang
saya contohkan diatas, ikuti skema penulisanya. Kirim ke Email saya
karjongkomekaringjangka@gmail.com
1 tim membuat 1 saja. Third speaker membantu menulis casenya, kalian
work in a team, so kalian harus bekerjasama. Setelah kalian kirim, akan
aku koreksi, setelah aq koreksi, kalian harus merevisinya N kirim balik
ke email ku. Penulisan ini sangat membantu kalian dalam structure
menyampaikan argument. Kalian harus punya usaha yang besar jika
ingin hasilnya juga besar. Kerja keras tidak akan berhianat terhadap
hasil. Jika kalian tidak mau bersusah payah debat, I suggest you to stay
at home.
When you go to the debate competition, you bring the name of your

school, you bring the name of yours, your school spends much money to
pay your slot in competition, your school pays coach to teach you to win,
not to lose, not only also as participant.
Above all, you bring my name of your coach, if you win that is because
your effort to win, but if you lose thats my fault in teaching you. People
dont care hows your effort to win, they only care when you win. So,
when you will win? Im very happy to see you next competition. Your
result is our mirror. One side of you and one side of mine. One side of the
mirror is when you win, it symbolizes that you are willing to sacrifice
everything you have to win, but when you lose, that is my mirror to sign
me that I alredy failed to teach you. So, plese make both of us like to see
our face in the mirror we have.
Good Luck for us, and happy debating:]