in my side we wouldn't agree with the motion that said "universities should eliminate standardized testing requirements for admissions", like why do the university have to eliminate it? what the biggest reason of it? cause in our side we concern that if university eliminate testing requirement, it would be impact the university itself, the college environtment and the college student capacity itself. Look, the positive side for doing testing is we will know the capacity of knowledge each person and make standart for the university like can this student getting along with the lesson? or she cannot? we need to consider this first before acception, why we have to consider the student ability? isn't everyone have the same place in the university whether she fool or smart, all of those have the same right so why did we have to sleecting them by testing? its and easy answer, in our side we believe that if you cannot fulfill the standart of the university you will make yourself stress for example we choose University of gadjah mada, this is a top 2 in Indonesia as the great university with a lot of smart alumni. So, if you being accepted by gadjah mada because there is no testing and you have less knowledge compare the others and the lesson itself isn't will make you stressed? like how can you match the others if you being hard to catching up the lesson not just that if many people like you being accepted if would impact the environment of the university and renewed the mindset of the student. which is would be bad not just for the student but for the university too. So the solution that we had is, first, we still have to applied testing for admissions requirement to select who is worth to accept it. second, we can make a second selection if they failed the test. which is by looking at their report at school, and what if the report not true and be cheated? well we will refuse their admissions and reject them, like what i said we have to select who worth it. and if you still think if we doing all this standardized what about the people who wanna try to past buy not good at maths or the other knowledge, there it is the third, we will make a selection for you to show us your gift like sport, art, writing, and a lot of gift you can show us, we will make some categories like art with art and sport with sport so we can judges it by fair. and this is our solution from the example and the solution i tell that our side will make a big impct for the future of the university, and i would tell that this will be good or better in our side

isn't student go to the university to learn? am i wrong? so why did you say that it doesn't seem like their ready for college by judging the test? isn't it have corelation to the function of the university itself? like isn't test mean you learning? the honorable adjudicators, i don't agree with the government side cause like what i said in the first place that this would make a bad impact if we drop the standardized testing for admissions, even the government side not telling us what the reason by their argument and what solution if they would drop the standardized? the hnorable adjudicators there still a lot of question by their side that not being tell to us

okay everyone maybe face the same way when they have a test, it's depends by each person, how they would manage their fear? it up to them cause if we face a test they are hope in our spirit that we have a goal to achieve that's why its normal for being afraid, but still what more urgent between having a test that makes you fear or not having test and make you feel comfort? there a two things here first, long-term impact and short-term impact? which our side would chose the long-term impact like why do we have to be happy in the first place and suffer in the ending? isn't bad?