DEBATE ENGLISH

● MOTION 1 "This house would ban homework"

● PRO TEAM - Supporting the ban on homework.

● 1st speaker

• Assertion

We believe that homework should be banned because it can harm students mental health.

• Reasoning

As we know as, students already spend more than 8 hours at school. After school, they still have to do
homework which means they have less time to rest and can become stressed an exhausted.

• Evidence

For instance, a study by stanford university found that 56% of students considered homework a primary
source of stress, while the american physchological association reports that teens suffering from chronic
stress can experience headaches, sleep deprivation, and weight loss.

• Link back

so instead of helping students, homework adds pressure and stress. That's why we believe banning
homework is better for students mental and emotional well-being.

● 2nd speaker

• Assertion

We believe that banning homework will give students more time for themselves and their families.

• Reasoning

Students spend most of their day at school, and when they go home, they deserve time to relax.
Connect with their families, or take care of themselves. Homework often takes away this valuable time,
causing stress and reducing quality family interaction.

• Evidence
Research from the stanford Graduate School of education in the US revealed that excessive homework
assignments can cause stress and health problems in students. Excessive homework assinments can
reduce children's time with family, friends, and participating in desired extracurricular activities. Etta
kralovec and john buell expressed a similiar sentiment children's bonding with their families and social
life.

A study from stanford university found that excessive homework leads to sleep deprivation, stress, and
even family conflict. For example, many students spend hours doing homework alone in their rooms,
while parents are busy too, this reduces bonding time and can even create arguments if the student
struggles to finish their tasks.

In contrast, in countries like finland, [Link] receive minimal homework, families report having
more quality time together, and students enjoy a better balance between school and life.

• Link back

So banning homework isn't about avoiding responsibility it's about making sure students have enough
time to rest, recharge, and build strong relantionship with the people who matters most themselves and
their families.

● 3rd speaker (summary)

As the third speaker, i will summarize our points. First, my teammate explained how homework causes
stress and lack of rest, which is bad for students health. Second, we showed that students can learn
better and more freely when they are not overloaded with homework, like in finland.

That is why we strongly support the motion to ban homework, for a healthie and more build strong
relantionship.

🗣 Reply Speech – PRO Team (Proposition)

Ladies and gentlemen, today both sides have presented their arguments, but it is clear that the
proposition stands stronger in defending what truly matters — students’ mental health, emotional well-
being, and quality of life.

Let’s review the debate.

First, the opposition argued that homework builds discipline and reinforces learning. But we’ve shown
that this benefit comes at a heavy cost: 56% of students report homework as their main source of stress,
as found in a Stanford University study. Students already spend 8+ hours at school, and instead of
resting, they face more pressure at home. This is not healthy or sustainable.

Second, the opposition suggested that instead of banning homework, we should just improve it. But
they offered no clear solution on how that would be done. Reforming homework sounds ideal, but in
reality, it continues to overload students year after year. The current system has failed to protect
students’ mental health — it’s time for real change.
Third, we explained that banning homework gives students time for family, self-care, and personal
growth. Studies show that in countries like Finland, where students have minimal or no homework, they
still perform well academically and have better life balance. The opposition tried to dismiss Finland, but
they failed to provide any strong evidence that heavy homework leads to better results.

In conclusion, while the opposition focused on outdated academic routines, we focused on the real lives
of students today — their stress, sleep deprivation, and lack of quality time. Education should not come
at the expense of a student’s mental and emotional well-being.

That is why we, the proposition, firmly support banning homework. For a healthier, happier, and more
balanced student life — we urge you to support the motion. Thank you.

● CON TEAM - opposing the ban on homework.

● 1st speaker

• Assertion

We disagree with banning homework because it helps students build responbility and discipline.

• Reasoning

completing homework instill a sense of responbility in students. Meeting deadlines and fulfilling
abligations teach the importance of accountability, essential traits for success in both personal and
professional life.

• Evidence

- According to our [Link], assigning homework in moderation helps, students develop discppline, it
teaches them to manage time, prioritize tasks, and meet deadlines, These skilss are valuable beyond
academics, laying the ground work for responsibility and a strong work ethic. Homework becames more
than just a tasks, it's a character building exercise preparing students for life's challenges.

- A study by Br. Dalimunthe and zuo Astria (2017) at SMP PAB 3 Saentis involved 34 students and found
that daily homework had a positive impact on students learning discipline. Based on questionnaires and
data analysis, they concluded that students who regulary received homework showed higher levels of
discipline in completing school tasks on time.

- According to Duke university homework (in the right amount) helps students develop good study
habits and time management skilss. For example, students who do homework regularly are often more
prepared for exams and know how to organize their learning better.

• Link back
So, homework is not just about grades it's about training character and life skilss, that's why it should no
be banned.

● 2nd speaker

• Assertion

We believe that homework will equips students for real-world challenges.

• Reasoning

Homework prepares students for real-world challenges by promoting critical thinking, problem solving,
and independent research assignments mirror the complexities of professional and personal life,
bridging theoretical knowledge with practical application. Tasks like solving real-world problems or
conducting interviews develop practical skills essential for adulthood.

• Evidence

A longtudinal study titled "The long-Term effects of time use during high school on positive
development" (avaible via pubmed central) found that the amount of time students spent on homework
and extracurricular activities during high-school had a positive long term impact on their development
into adulthood. The study showed that structured time use, such as regularly doing homework, was
linked to better educational attainment and smoother career pathways notably, students from
disaduantaged background experienced the greates benefits.

•Link back

For that, we believe that these finding suggest that homework contributes to shaping productive habits,
such as time management and responbility, which are critical for success in higher education and future
employment.

●3rd speaker (summary)

Let me summarize our side. First, we believe homework builds important life skils like discipline and
responbility. Second, we explained that homework helps students understand and remember what theu
learn in school.

That's why we do not support banning homework. instead, we believe homework should stay as a
valuable part of education.

● CON TEAM – Reply Speech

Ladies and gentlemen, honorable judges, and respected opposition,

Today, we stand firmly against the motion to ban homework, and here’s why.
Throughout this debate, our team has clearly shown that homework plays a crucial role in developing
student discipline, responsibility, and readiness for the future. Let’s briefly recall our main points.

Our first speaker explained how homework is more than just an academic task — it's a character-
building activity. Completing homework teaches students to meet deadlines, manage their time, and
stay organized — all essential traits for both academic success and future careers. As we presented,
research by Br. Dalimunthe and Zuo Astria (2017) found that students who regularly do homework show
greater discipline. Additionally, Duke University supports that the right amount of homework builds
study habits and time management skills.

Our second speaker emphasized that homework equips students with real-world skills such as critical
thinking and independent learning. A long-term study published in PubMed Central showed that
structured time use — like doing homework — led to better life outcomes, especially for students from
disadvantaged backgrounds. This proves that homework is not a burden, but a tool for long-term
success.

Now let me respond to the opposing side.

The Pro team argues that homework causes stress and takes away rest time. But let’s be clear: we are
not defending excessive homework. We believe in balanced and meaningful homework. When given in
appropriate amounts, homework strengthens learning and prepares students for life. In fact, it can even
reduce stress by helping students stay on top of their studies instead of cramming before exams.

Yes, students need time for themselves and family — and that’s important. But banning homework
completely is not the solution. The right approach is to improve how homework is assigned, not to
eliminate it altogether.

In conclusion, we have shown with clear arguments and strong evidence that homework supports
personal growth, academic success, and future readiness. It builds responsibility, discipline, and
resilience — values that go far beyond the classroom.

So we urge you to stand with us, and say no to banning homework. Let’s keep it, improve it, and use it
to help students grow.

Thank you.

● MOTION 2

" this house believe that the internet brings more harm than good"

🟥 PRO TEAM (Setuju internet lebih banyak mudaratnya)

🔹Speaker 1 (Opening Argument)

• Assertion: The internet brings more harm than good because it increases mental health problems
among teenagers.

• Reasoning: Many teenagers spend hours online, comparing themselves to others, which causes low
self-esteem and anxiety.

• Evidence: According to a 2019 study by the Pew Research Center, 59% of U.S. teens have been bullied
or harassed online. Also, the Royal Society for Public Health in the UK found that social media increases
feelings of depression and anxiety in youth.

• Link: This shows that instead of helping young people grow, the internet actually harms their mental
well-being. If the internet causes more emotional harm than good, then it clearly does more damage
than benefit.

🔹Speaker 2 (Supporting Argument)

• Assertion: The internet spreads false information and makes it harder for people to know what is true.

• Reasoning: Anyone can post anything online. This allows fake news, scams, and conspiracy theories to
spread fast and wide.

• Evidence: For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many people believed in false cures and
refused vaccines because of what they saw online. A study by MIT showed that false news spreads six
times faster than true news on Twitter.

• Link: This proves that the internet is not a place of truth, but a source of confusion and danger. If
people cannot trust what they read online, how can we say the internet does more good than harm?

🔹Speaker 3 (Conclusion)

Ladies and gentlemen, let me summarize our side.

Speaker 1 explained how the internet damages teenagers' mental health, supported by real data and
studies.

Speaker 2 showed how the internet is a dangerous place full of false information that misleads people.

With so many harms—emotional damage, confusion, and even danger to public health—we strongly
believe that the internet brings more harm than good. Thank you.

🟩 CONTRA TEAM (Tidak setuju, internet lebih banyak manfaatnya)

🔹Speaker 1 (Opening Argument)

• Assertion: The internet brings more good than harm because it helps people access education easily.

• Reasoning: With the internet, students can learn anything anytime, even if they live far from schools or
have no teachers nearby.
• Evidence: During the COVID-19 pandemic, millions of students continued learning through online
platforms like Google Classroom, Zoom, and Khan Academy. UNESCO reported that over 1.6 billion
students used the internet to continue their education during lockdowns.

• Link: This shows that without the internet, education would have stopped for many. So, clearly, the
internet is a powerful tool for learning and opportunity.

🔹Speaker 2 (Supporting Argument)

• Assertion: The internet helps people connect and solve problems faster, especially in emergencies.

• Reasoning: The internet allows instant communication, helping people get help or share warnings
during disasters or health emergencies.

• Evidence: For example, during earthquakes or floods, people use Twitter or WhatsApp to ask for help
or share information. In 2023, people in Turkey used Instagram stories to locate trapped victims during
an earthquake, saving many lives.

• Link: This proves that the internet is not only useful but also saves lives. How can something that saves
lives bring more harm than good?

🔹Speaker 3 (Conclusion)

Ladies and gentlemen, our team believes the internet brings more good than harm.

Speaker 1 explained how it supports education worldwide, even in difficult times.

Speaker 2 showed how it helps people communicate and even save lives in emergencies.

While the internet has problems, its benefits—education, connection, and safety—are far more
powerful. Thank

🟥 PRO TEAM – Reply Speech

MOTION: This House Believes That the Internet Brings More Harm Than Good

Ladies and gentlemen, today we’ve heard arguments from both sides. Let me remind you why the PRO
team clearly wins this debate.

First, we showed that the internet harms young people’s mental health. Our first speaker gave strong
evidence from the Pew Research Center and the Royal Society for Public Health. Teenagers are
comparing themselves online, getting cyberbullied, and suffering from anxiety and depression. This is
not a small issue—it’s affecting millions of young people globally.

Second, we showed how the internet is filled with misinformation, which leads to real-life harm. During
the COVID-19 pandemic, fake cures and anti-vaccine lies went viral online, putting lives at risk. As our
second speaker pointed out, a study from MIT proved that false news spreads faster than the truth. How
can something that spreads lies and confusion be considered good?

Now let’s look at the opposition.

They said the internet helps education and communication. Yes, that is true—but those benefits are not
without cost. Online learning also increased screen time and mental fatigue. And communication
online? It’s also where cyberbullying, scamming, and trolling happen. The very tools they mentioned—
like social media—are the same platforms causing mental distress.

Even if there are good sides, we must weigh which impact is stronger. Education can be done in many
ways, but mental harm and misinformation are deep, dangerous, and difficult to control. The internet is
open to all—but that openness is exactly what makes it so harmful.

In conclusion, the harms of the internet—emotional damage, false information, and risks to public
safety—clearly outweigh its benefits. That’s why today, the PRO team strongly believes that the internet
brings more harm than good.

Thank you.

🟩 CONTRA TEAM – Reply Speech

MOTION: This House Believes That the Internet Brings More Harm Than Good

Ladies and gentlemen, we’ve heard both sides of the debate today. Let me clearly explain why the
CONTRA team wins.

The PRO team focused only on the harms—mental health and misinformation. While we agree that
these are real issues, they ignored one important fact: the internet is just a tool. The way we use it
matters more than blaming the internet itself.

Let’s look at what our side proved.

First, we showed how the internet has saved education for millions of students around the world. As our
first speaker said, during the COVID-19 pandemic, over 1.6 billion students relied on the internet to
continue learning. Without it, schools would have stopped. Education is not a small benefit—it changes
[Link], our team explained how the internet has helped people survive real emergencies. From
earthquakes to floods, people used WhatsApp, Instagram, and other platforms to call for help and save
lives. In Turkey, lives were saved because people used social media to send their location. That’s not just
helpful—it’s life-saving.

Now, let’s answer the PRO team’s arguments.

They talked about mental health and fake news, but these are not caused by the internet alone—they
are caused by how people use it. Instead of banning or blaming the internet, we can solve these
problems through digital education, online safety rules, and mental health awareness.

Also, the PRO team didn’t deny our points about education or disaster response. They mentioned
problems, but we showed solutions and benefits that save and improve lives.

So, when we weigh both sides, it’s clear: yes, the internet has risks—but the benefits are much stronger
and more important.

In conclusion, the CONTRA team believes the internet brings more good than harm. It helps us learn,
connect, and even survive. The internet is not the problem—how we use it is.

Thank you.