THBT curfews are effective in terms of keeping teens out of trouble

1.gov—curfew is the most effective

Why? Curfew is usually inside the parameter of supervised hours. A lot of people are going about. It is
going to deter teens to keep teens from misbehaving.

At least if you are giving them a curfew, you're giving them a sense as if they are monitored.

-why do bad deeds happen at night?

a. There are not a lot of witnesses, you can do whatever you want.

b. The freedom of going home at whatever time you want is going to be interpreted by the teens as
“you can do whatever you want as long as you come home" this creates an unhealthy mindset,
especially in teens when they haven't matured enough to think about the consequences of the things
they're about to do. Their curiosity will far outweigh their sense of responsibility. Especially if their
parents don’t put a leash on them.

2.opp—other methods are more effective

-the gov team cannot say that its curfew combined with other things because they're saying that curfew
is the most effective. You cannot say curfew with monitoring or limited allowance. Curfew is the main
method, but you still need other things. But if you can proof that the other methods is most important
then, you are going to win as opposition.

-curfew is not as effective as other methods because

curfew is needed, but it is not the thing that will prevent teens from misbehaving. What can prevent?
Proper education, proper rules in the family.

ex. You cannot take the car, you have limited spending money, a proper reporting of your spendings,
proper tuition--because even achieving misdeeds requires money.
THBT national examinations must be eliminated

1. gov—talking about not everything can be measured using exams

-because different schools have different standards, its going to be harder or easier for some schools.
Why bad? Because its going to create an impression that one school is better than the other. Because as
a graduate, you don’t want to be seen as a graduate from a lesser school. Regardless of business
standpoint : school losing admissions. You don’t want to be seen as someone lesser.

-its not fair for students to be judged for 6 years of primary school or 3 years of high school by a single
exam. Why? Its too much just to be put into 3 years worth of exam.

Our education system always has a problem of measuring things. For example if you have a talent in
music/arts/etc, if you just happen to be not excelling in memorization or calculations, then you might
fail 3 years of high school even though you have plenty of other talents, and its not fair for the students
to go through that.

-its too stressful, not a healthy learning environment. Also bcs national exams in the schools are going to
be compared to other schools in the nation, they will pressure the students.

2. opp—talking about why having a standard is good

-it is exactly because every school has a different standard that we are giving them this national exams
so that they know what they're supposed to aim towards. The goal of standardization is to produce
young adults who knows that after they graduate, this is what the country expects you to understand. If
you pass the national exam, you know that you require the standard of being a high school graduate

-school standpoint: they have a metric on which they should strive towards. Bcs without the standards,
schools will have difficulty because after high school you will go to university. And the university will not
know what kinds of test they need to give the students, what we should expect from the students, if
every single school is different.

-student standpoint : after graduating exam, you can aim for other things like further education