This house prefers a world where instead of charging tuition fees to

students upfront, universities collect a portion of their income upon

graduation.
In the status quo, universities charge tuition fees to PROP:
students while they are still in the university. Prop proposes 1.
that they collect portions of their income in the jobs they
have after graduation. This is a problem because by
collecting that portion, we are burdening them more than ifOPP:
we charge while they are still students. Sidekita: bayar tuition biasa + ada scholarship
1. Money circulation → better facilities → better
research
Framing: 2. Concentrate more scholarships → ada uang pasti
1. We prefer a tuition payment with the old method like 3. Minority will just went to take a job instead → Either
paying tuition per term, and etc. but the most take job or went to univv
important thing to note is we still have scholarship 4.
offers but more accessible like how in Indonesia you
can get scholarships from puspresnas, etc.
2. When students cannot afford education fees, we’re
so sorry that they need to drop out from school.
3. We need to clarify that yes to take A PORTION OF
INCOME, but it doesn’t mean you pay a cheaper
price. You PAY FOR THE SAME FEES, but step by
step through collecting a portion of income.

Independent rebuttal:
- Increase student loans
- Untrue, we’re not providing any service like
that. We want students to pay upfront.
- Even if it’s true, we think that we give them
incentives to work harder, to make a good
money management then.

Argument:
1. Why money is inherently important for
education institutions.
Premise: Education institution is a crucial place where the
community of students gather to pursue education. That
means we want to ensure and get a safety net when we
graduate students, we can develop the institution all along.

Why is money important?

1. Just be realistic, we think money is a reason why
educational institutions can work. We need hard
money and not just contracts. We want to play it
safe. When you create a new system, what is your
source of money now? prop didn’t even provide us
any mechanism to still give funds to educational
institutions.
2. Educational institutions are the source to fix the next
 generation. We think that educational institutions in
the status quo are only concentrated in the capital
city. This is inherently bad because if you make a
system where u take universities’ tuition when they
work, it takes a really long time and you’ve already
spent too much money like paying educational
workers, building maintenance, etc but you got
nothing in return. We don’t want educational
institutions being closed because they’re lacking the
government's funds knowing that not all countries
are all privileged.
3. We give incentives for people to study in our country
because we’re trying to maintain our education’s
quality. This is inherently important because the
next gen is crucial and we don’t want them to go
abroad for education. Why is this dangerous?
a. Most students who go abroad for study are
less likely to go back to their country. This is
crucial because we don’t want people to go
and contribute to other countries. Developed
countries getting more developed but their
own countries getting more hindered
knowing the fact that we’ve already raised
them.

How this will impact the educational institution:

1. We get education institutions who are working with
enough funding, if we give people money when
people pay for it within the moment that means that
there is enough funding right now. We can expand
our facilities, ecosystem lab, or etc that can maintain
our students’ qualities. Now students can fulfill their
curiosity and manifest their materials into reality. We
can give incentives for student tp work harder
because they do it in real life and not just through
books nor videos.
2. For example, an education institution pays for the
book library, or even the school facilities, then we
get the impact back to the student, acknowledge
that there is the real treatment to be directed to the
student.
3. We can give more incentives for teachers to devote
their time to educationals institutions. Why is this
true that teachers are disincentivized?
a. Money is the compensation for their hard
work. But. in the status quo, govt are less
likely to engage to the teachers’ prosperity.
That is why when we can have the hard
money and we can give insurance and
compensations to the teachers.
The conclusion we can give benefits to the educational
institution, students, and teachers.

What is going to be under side prop:

2 condition:
1. School don't even have any income within the
current years means that they need to save the
money for some period of time, eg like for years in
waiting for student A graduate and get a job
2. If they have the money from the previous year, that
means they need to save it as tidy as possible and
only likely to spend a smaller amount of money,
why? Simply bcs they are scared that they will run
out of the money

2nd arg: why can we give more safety net?

We want people to choose the suitable path for their lives,
based on their economic situations and individual
capabilities.
Why is this crucial?
Because
1. We do not want to give minorities fake hope,
because they have to know that money is crucial,
especially with their situations and capabilities. For
example, we don’t want minorities who push
themselves into education when they do not have
the economic capabilities to do so, because loans
will always be many and even if you did graduate,
you can’t immediately become the boss and get
money that can pay for both the after-graduation
student loans and your own life. Meanwhile if they
focused on working without chasing education, they
could actually get the chance to get a higher
position and money for their needs.
2. We’re not saying that we don’t want minorities to not
access education but we want them to be rational.
You can access bachelor degree education when
you are already economically stable or at the age of
30.
3. If you are a minority and are extremely smart, you
can go for scholarships. Harvard is also likely to
accept people from minorities. Why is this true?
a. Institutions always want to get wide-ranging
diversities in their students because it’s an
affirmative action. Not only will they get a
better image for the institution, but they can
also get more support from said-minority.

Why our side protect minority better:

1. Look how minorities have been treated badly and
 when they go to school they think that they will get a
greater chance of life. That is why they have
utilitarianism when they put education on top or job
on top to the longevity of their life, that’s mean we
don't give them any fake hope and we don't give
them any kind of mindset that the most crucial stuff
is to went to education even if this is not likely to be
useful in your life.

Education is the crucial part of an individual to get a better

opportunity but we need to acknowledge it is not a privilege
and it’s all because of the birth lottery.

1 strategic flaw:

2 points of clarification:
1. They are taking half stance because they tld you
that they only take 50%.e flip their claim then how
they can
2. All of their case can fall with my one sentence

1st arg: why can we protect students?

1st issue: students loans
Untrue, we’ve already told you because we’re not providing
any service like that, we’re not providing

2nd issue: study’s effectiveness

Untrue, we think that you can have more comfortableness
through studying because
1. You’ve already paid for all the necessities that you
need. You don’t need to feel guilty. You can still eat
comfortably.
2. What happens on propositions is you’re creating a
burden which pushes students to part time. What
they focus now, not because

Even if it’s true, we think that it can also happen on our side
of the house.why is this true?
1. You don’t have to be afraid, you are not scared.
2. Even though it's gonna be much better.

3rd issue: isntitution’s responsibility

4th issue: it’s because of the fees and make students are
late
Untrue,
Even if it’s true,

Why can we protect educational institutions?

Extension: why can we create better reasonable students?

In the vast majority of society, utility stands champion over

everything. This is a cruel world. To be realistic, how do -
people even continue their life if they don't even have the
money. So the utility proposes giving the jurisdiction on
how, if you are extremely underprev, just prioritize eating,
take a job and don't go to school.
Point: What if this people still need to pay:

Major downfall:
- Entire props cases gives the idea that student dont
even have any money
- If student dont have the money they are not going to
sign up at first → this is our argument tho , they fail
to analyze that they have the tendency of false hope

Mechanism: still implement even this student dont

graduates
- This is just rude!! Neither win” solution under your
side
- Orang kek school ga dapet money
- Student also less likely to get the sufficient job tho
- On the point: That means that you will never get a
great education.

Decrease student loans:

1. Only think about how they can just learn and how to
make the money → This is just wrong, you will still
have the student loans tho
2. Many student stop learning bcs economic condition
→ Right, this is exactly what we want → people just
need to sustain life with in the peop le’s life
 3. Students choose bad univ → I can just flip this
situation and say that this is likely to occur under
both sides → another flip, you have the mindset that
after i graduate i will get a great job.

How this is great:

1. They get student who create relationship in life and
contribute to the society
2. Social credits
→ First less likely to happen, as a fresh grad you are not
going to contribute even better tho.
→ Even when they create a relationship and can jump to
the society, but talking about people that extremely poor,
→ Last, even if this is true, no step by step analysis

Weighing:
1. Education institution
2. We still have the eg. Great campus facilities.
3. Punya people yang masih bisa pergi ke college after
they have the money.
TITLE VS DURATION OF WORK
Mirror mirror on the wall who’s the slayest of them all? It’s our side of the house because we can
forward faster and better developments, protecting students, and preventing false hope for the
minorities and underprivileged.

Biggest flaw: all of their cases only contingent on the fact that after they graduate, they will
immediately get a job. Not engaging in our worst case scenario.

1st issue: student’s options?

We’ve already told you 3 things:
1. Students should’ve just paid the terms upfront and if they cannot pay, they need to be
dropped out. We’re not providing any student loans.
What their respond:
It’s unfair because students want to access education
1. Untrue, we still provide them scholarships. 3rd speaker told you that oh it’s unfair
because it exploits tax payers, then we asked them back how the educational institutions
can survive. In fact, it’s gonna be much more bigger, because we can
2. No false hope → it’s because the glorification of education,
3. Rational decision →

WEIGHING:
1. You can be more focus on your primary need. → underpriv → money is crucial →
geeting 4 years of mcdonald and maybe they can be a manager.
2. You can be more reasonable because you’re
2nd issue: educational institutions?
We’ve already told you that money is inherently important to develop our facilities.

Opp responds:
1. It’s institution’s responsibility
a. Untrue, by we kicked them out, it doesn’t mean that we’re banning the people TO
ACCESS EDUCATION. They can access education after being economically
independent.
b. Even if it’s true,

Giving incentives for students

Giving incentives for teachers