Kalimat Pernyataan Pendapat, giving opinion :

Showing Disagreement:

 In my opinion, this one would be better /  I don’t agree.

Menurut saya, ini lebih baik
 To my mind this one is better / Dalam pandangan
saya ini lebih baik
 In my view, this one is best / Menurut saya, ini
yang terbaik
 To my way of thinking, this one is fine / Saya pikir,
ini cukup baik
 I’d say that one is better / Bisa saya katakan ini
lebih baik
 Know what I think? That one is best / Tau apa
yang saya pikirkan? itu adalah yang terbaik
 What I think is that one is better / Apa yang saya
pikirkan adalah itu terbaik
 For me, that one is better / Bagi saya, itu lebih
baik
 If you ask me, this one is better / Kalau kamu
bertanya pada saya, ini lebih baik
 I tell you what I think, that one is best / Saya
katakan apa yang saya pikir, bahwa itu lebih baik
Materi 1
 I totally disagree.
 I completely disagree.
 I don’t guess so.
 I am sorry, but I disagree with you.
 I am afraid, I can’t agree with your opinion.
 I doubt with that.
 Your opinion was in complete contradiction to..
 I have a different opinion with you.
 I am of different opinion.
 I cannot agree with your idea.
 I don’t think so.
 That is not true.
 That is not always true.
 I am not so sure about that.
 I beg to differ – I think that…
 I am afraid I have to disagree with you because…
 I completely disagree with that (kata that
mengacu pada the opinion)
 I think your point is very misleading…

Some TV shows in Indonesia, such as gossip, soap operas, talk shows, advertising raids, and so forth can help the entry
of globalization but also can turn off the Indonesian cultural personal.

Pro Arguments:

It is actually good if the television show in Indonesia is growing on which it is seen from the increasing number of events
and the more creative the entertainment topics. Some TV shows such as Reality Show strongly encourages Indonesia to
be known in the international world, to finally make Indonesia ready to enter the Era of Globalization. Unfortunately,
these advances have made Indonesian indigenous cultures dead, because as the progress, Indonesia is now starting to
lead to a foreign lifestyle, until today’s young generation no longer appreciates indigenous Indonesian culture, such as
dance arts, wayang, batik, statues, carvings, and so forth.
Contra Arguments:

I agree that the rise of TV shows such as those abroad is an advancement for Indonesian television, and can help
Indonesia in the face of globalization. However, the assertion that it is a deadly Indonesian personal culture is very
intolerable. It is because precisely with such progress, Indonesian culture can be more globalized, known, and admired
by people overseas who still do not realize how great and unique the original culture of Indonesia is. This is should be
the fact that these TV shows can help the entry of globalization to come into Indonesia, then the culture of Indonesia
will also be pushed to get out of Indonesia to be known internationally.

Materi 2

Many street vendors on the roadside make Indonesia look untidy and a poor country in the eyes of the international
world. So in the name of Indonesia, the street vendors must be evicted.

Pro Arguments:

If tourists from abroad come to Indonesia and see many street vendors who roam on the streets, it can not be blamed if
the tourists conclude that Indonesia is a developed country and many of its citizens are living in poverty. So in the name
of Indonesia, the wandering street vendors must be eliminated, and Indonesia must organize itself into a clean and tidy
country in order to raise its degree so that it is considered good by the whole world. Thus, facing the era of globalization
is not a difficult thing for Indonesia.

Contra Arguments:

Until now it can not be denied if, indeed, Indonesia is a country whose majority of the population still lives in the middle-
low economy class. So there is no need for fraud against the international world with the aim of raising the degree, if in
fact there are still many Indonesian citizens who have economic problems. We can also try to imagine how the reaction
of all the people of Indonesia if all street vendors cleaned. Many people will become unemployed, demos will become
more widespread, and chaos will definitely happen. That would actually increase the bad view of Indonesia in the world.
Unless the street vendors are moved to a clean location, they must be provided by a new replacement location. Then, a
new statement to clear all street vendors from the streets is acceptable.
Materi 3

Crime in Indonesia is due to the abundance of children neglected by parents.

Pro Arguments:

Psychological factors are very influential on self-criminal. If a child does not have the correct guidance from his parents,
then it is reasonable if there is a side that is not right in the individual himself. So it can be concluded that the crime in
Indonesia is due to improper parental guidance, resulting in irregularities that refer to crime. The number of criminals in
Indonesia can reduce the degree of Indonesia in the eyes of the international world because a high crime will damage
the good name of Indonesia, which until now is still considered to have many friendly and virtuous citizens.

Contra Arguments:

We can not blame parents for causing someone to be a criminal. There may be criminals who are misguided by their
parents, but there are far more criminals who already have bad qualities of themselves. The crime can also be caused by
the demands of life, for example a very poor man who needs food will eventually be forced by the situation in his life to
do the act of robbery. He was not taught by his parents, but circumstances that urge him to commit a crime.

Thbt our govermnt should take a firm action upon illegal miner.
From that motion we will give our themeline: That we as the affirmatif team absolutly agree that the gvrment must take
a firm action to the illegal miner for the goodness of our country.

Then our parameter today is that we just talk about the gold illegal miner in our country(dalam hal ini bs anda ganti dgn
pertambangan yg lain,misal: minyak etc.)
(Jadi jk lawan anda sampai bicara soal minyak pdhal team anda memberikan pembatasan hanya pada penambangan
emas,berarti satu kelemahan dari lawn bisa anda jadikan senjata.Anda bisa langsung nembak bahwa apa yg mrka
bicarakan lari dari parameter yg anda buat sbg team+)
well,continue to our team split,
Me as the 1fst speaker would like to talk about the effect for Economic point of view,our 2nd speaker would like to talk
about the Law pov and the 3rd speaker wldlike to give more proof and summery of our argument.(bisa diganti P.o.v.yg
lain, mis: society dll)

And for the reply speech(kesimpulan) will be give by (1st or 2nd )speaker.
Next ladies and gentleman,i would like to give mour argument..(...)silahkan berargument sesuai point of view anda.
Jangan lupa untuk memberikan salam penutup n ucapan terimakasih(untuk smua pembicara)

2nd speaker:
Tugas:>Rebutle the 1st speaker of Neg Team.
>Argument
3rd speaker:
 >Rebutle the 2nd speaker of Neg team
> memberikan penguatan atas argumen pembicara1 dan 2
>memberikan contoh n bukti yg kuat untuk keseluruhan argument of the team.
Khusus untuk 3rd speaker lebih baik yg bnr2 pandai brbicara dan lebih galak.Karena 3rd spkr adalah ujung tombak dari
team anda.jadi 3rd speaker adlh hrs yg pling kuat dlm berargument.

Tugas Untuk Negatif team:

pada dasarnya sama hanya tidak perlu membuat parameter krn team afirmatif telah menentukan sendiri
Sebagai negatif hrs jeli terhadap tugas2 1st speaker of +. Ingat: jika tdk ada parameter anda bisa merebut point itu.
katakan saja mis:
1st speaker of Neg: well because the 1st speaker of affrmtf team didnt give us the parameter,so here i wouldlike to give
our parameter today...bla..bla..
Jadi mau tdk mau mrk hrs ikut jalur anda.(sesuatu yg sepele dan sangat menjatuhkan posisi lawan krn bisa saja mrk tdk
kepikiran tentang batasan pembicaraan yg anda buat,jd mrk bisa bingung sendiri mengawali argument mereka.)
seandainya mrka nekat lari tnp peduli parameter anda,maka itu suatu kesalahan yg besar,berarti perdebatan tdk ada
artinya alias cuma bicara sendiri2 dan anda bisa langsung menegurnya.

jelasnya:
1st speaker: >Rebutle of the 1st speaker afrmtf
>Pembagian tugas sama sprti diatas
>Argument
2nd : >rebutle of the2nd spkr of afrmtf
>argument
3rd :>rebutle of 3rd speaker of + team
> proofing n summary(jgn buat kasus baru)

Contoh Debate (Speaker 1)

ini adalah contoh Debate dalam bahasa inggris yang saya lakukan saat praktek di SMA sebagai Speaker 1 (pembicara 1),
semoga bisa membantu :D

Debate

Speaker 1

Good morning ladies and gentleman. We are from affirmative team. My name is Andhisa Gita Pratiwi as the first speaker
and this is Rizky Dianita as the second speaker, and Dewi Oktaviani as the third speaker.

The motion today is This house believe that government should increase the wages of labour. And we agree with the
motion.

The definition the motion is, Labour is any person who is able to do the work in order to produce goods and services to
meet the needs of both themselves and for society.
We limit the discussion only in indonesian.

To discuss this problem, we have 3 arguments, the first is fair, the second is wages make the labour develop and help
country developing too, and the third is expensive cost in living.

The first argument will be explain by the first speaker, the second argument will be explain by the second speaker, and
the last speaker will elaborate all arguments.

Now, i want to tell you about my argument. The statement is fair, because my reason is to improve the lives of labour
it’s better from before. I give you one example the labour to meet their needs. In UU No.39 of 1999 in article 38
paragraph 4 states “Everyone, both men and women, in doing the job that commensurate with humanity is entitled to
fair wages according to performance and can guarantee the continuity of family life”.

Ladies and gentleman, now let me conclude my argument. I agree with the motion because is fair.

Reply

Ladies and gentleman, thank you for the time given to me.

The motion today is this house believe that government should increase the wages of labour, and we agree with the
motion.

Because the first is fair, the second is wages make the labour develop and help country developing too, and the third is
expensive cost in living.

Although your teams has different argument with us like, unemployement, a tax that is expensive, and

I disagree, because the labour have the right of each particular in raising wages for doing equal work.

Now, let me conclude our debate today. The clash is this house believe that government should increase the wages of
labour. I still believe that my teams arguments are better than yours because we have strongers reasons,example,and
evidence.

Tugas dari1st speaker Affirmmative adalah :

1) Mendefinisikan motion.
2) Memberikan Theme Line ( Benang merah ), yaitu hal yang mendasari logika motion.
3) Team Split ( Pemecahan tugas anggota )
4) Memberikan argumentasi

Tugas dari 2nd speaker Affirmmative- 5 menitadalah :

!) Memberikan rebuttal ( sanggahan )
2) Memberikan argumentsai

Tugas dari 3rd speaker Affirmative adalah :

1) Memberikan Rebtutal
2) Menjelaskan ulang apa yang disampaiakn oleh pembicara pertama dan pembicara kedua.

Tugas dari 1stspeaker Negative adalah :

1) Menegaskan jawaban atas definisi dari tim affirmative, apakah menerima atau menolak definisi tersebut. Biasanya
menerima saja, tapi pembuktian dan argumennya dianggap tidak sesuai dengan logika.
2) Menangkis dasar pemikiran dari pembicara pertama affirmative, tentunya harus didukung engan bukti-bukti.
3) Mengemukakan dasar pemikiran/logika dari timnya.
4) Menjelaskan pembagian tugas timnya.
5) Menjelaskan sub topiknya sendiri ( segi sosial, misalnya ) yang telah dibagi dalam tim split.

Tugas dari 2nd speaker Negative adalah :

1) Menyerang argumen dari kedua pembicara tim affirmative.
2) Menjelaskan dasar logika tim negative.
3) Menjelaskan argumentasi topiknya sendiri yang telah dibagi dalam team split.
4) Mengemukakan ringkasan umum seluruh isi pembicaraannya.

Tugas dari 3rd speaker adalah :

1) Menyerang argumen dan theme line yang diajukan oleh ketiga pembicara lawan dan memperkuatnya dengan
mengajukan bukti dan data-data yang lebih jauh.
2)Membangun kembali theme line yang dirobohkan tim negative.
3) Mencari-cari kesalahan tim lawan. Tunjukkan bahwa argumen lawanmu saling bertentangan satu sama lain yang
menandakan organisasi mereka tidak kompak.
4) Menyimpulkan seluruh poin yang telah ia kemukakan.

Tugas kedua reply speaker :

1) Menyimpulkan dan meninjau secara luas dan komperhensif.
2) Mengemukakan seluruh argumen yang telah diajukan.
3) Membenarkan pendapat timnya.

Mungkin ada beberapa istilah yang masih asing di telinga Anda, berikut adalah penjelasannya :
1. Motion
Motian adalah topik, yang merupakan susunan pernyataan yang menentukan hal apa yang akan didebatkan. Tim
affirmative harus mempertahankan motion, sementara tim negative harus menentangnya.
2. Theme Line ( Benang Merah )
Theme Line adalah hal yang mendasari logika motion. Theme Line menjelaskan strategi argumen tim, apakah
mempertahankan atau menolak motion. Biasanya singkat saja kalimatnya tapi sangat tegas dan berbobot.
3.Team Split
team split merupakan pembagian tugas dari setiap pembicara pada setiap tim.
4.Argumen
Argumentasi adalah proses penjelasan mengapa sudut pandang pembicara harus diterima. Sangat erat hubungannya
dengan logika dan bukti-bukti yang mendukung kesimpulan utama.
5. Rebuttal
Rebuttal merupakan proses pembuktian bahwa argumen tim lawan salah.