LDI 2025 - Preliminasi Babak 2

Main ideas, concepts, and lessons

1) Opening / institutional message (Atmajaya University Yogyakarta)

• Purpose of education: education is portrayed as teaching knowledge and compassion, and contributing to the welfare of society.
• Institutional mission (Atmajaya University Yogyakarta / UAJY):
  • Producing a young generation of musicians (as stated) who excel and have high moral integrity.
  • Encouraging students to achieve their future dreams.
• Identity and values of UAJY:
  • “Atma Jaya” interpreted as superior soul (atma = soul, jaya = superior).
  • Motto (Latin): “Serviens in lumine veritatis” = serving in the light of truth.
  • Four core values:
    • Excellence
    • Inclusivity
    • Humanism
    • Integrity (honesty, reliability, consistency in words/acts, and responsibility)
  • Diversity across cultures, religions, races, ethnicities, ages, and languages is framed as an asset for collaboration and a better future.
• Campus and learning support resources:
  • Four campuses: Campus 1 (Santo Alfonsus), Campus 2 (Santo Thomas Aquinas), Campus 3 (Santo Bonaventura), Campus 4 (Bunda Teresa).
  • Multiple program levels: undergraduate, master, and international undergraduate programs.
  • Support facilities: hybrid learning classrooms, laboratories, coworking space, university clinic personnel, and a library (books, ebooks, digital libraries).
  • Emphasis on a family-like academic community and solidarity-based services.

---

2) Debate event: LDI 2025 (Indonesian Language) – Round 2

• Round start instructions (reminders from the jury chair):

  • Debate is live-streamed on YouTube.
  • Audience and technical awareness are requested.
  • Speakers use the front microphone.
  • Interruptions are allowed using the microphone and are encouraged to increase value/dynamism.
  • Microphone handover protocol:
    • Initially at the contract team table for interruptions.
    • After the first speaker finishes, microphone is passed to the pro team table, and so on—so it stays with the team that is not speaking.
  • Timing / bells:
    • Substantive speech: bell at 1st minute, two bells at 7th minute, three bells at 7:15 (do not exceed time).
    • Conclusion: one bell at 3rd minute, two bells at 4th minute.
  • Timer/stopwatch assistance may be needed.

• Motion for debate (as stated):

  • The board views that the new student admissions system should consider factors other than academic tests, including (but not limited to):
    • interviews
    • background
    • aptitude tests
    • achievements in certain fields
    • and others.

---

3) Debate structure and main arguments

Team roles (as presented)

• Pro team: argues for admissions considering non-academic factors beyond academic tests.
• Opposition/Contra team: argues to keep the system more test-focused (status quo-like), warning that adding many assessments increases burden/pressure.

---

Detailed bullet points of the debate methodology / argument frameworks

Pro team (supporting the motion) — core claims

How the admissions system would work (described as “matrices/brackets”)

• Admissions are not only based on one test; instead students are assessed through multiple components with proportional weighting, including:
  • UTBK / academic testing (one portion)
  • talents/interests
  • affirmative action (e.g., gender-related or other eligibility categories)
  • geographical/location conditions
  • plus interviews and background
• Interview and background components create a separate assessment matrix alongside UTBK.
• The university aims to get to know each individual, not only look at scores.
• Candidates can choose what fits their abilities, improving probability of acceptance.

Inclusivity rationale

• Academic tests alone are framed as not inclusive because they effectively reward students who can access preparation resources (tutoring, study help, etc.).
• Pro argues education should:
  • view students as whole individuals
  • assess more than cognitive performance (including social interaction/community contribution potential).
• Opposition is portrayed as focusing only on cognitive metrics (math/literacy reasoning) and ignoring contribution to society or individual needs.

Challenge to “glorification” / narrow definitions of intelligence

• Society overvalues academic achievement (math/literacy/OSN-style recognition), leading to:
  • students pursuing only what is rewarded academically
  • reduced motivation for non-academic strengths
  • stronger parental encouragement toward academic exam prep
• Pro argues universities adapt by relying on test-based “valid parameters,” which can ignore broader student impacts.

Validity and broader measurement

• Pro argues academic tests are rigid and have externalities (e.g., health/psychological factors on the test day).
• Pro claims cognitive ability is broader than one measurable set:
  • humans have multiple forms of intelligence (example: emotional, social, narrative-related strengths).
• Non-academic assessments (CV, organizations, interviews) capture soft skills required for university life and post-work environments.

Expected benefits

• More accessible pathways for vulnerable/marginalized students.
• Soft skills (communication, organization, emotional intelligence) are more assessable via non-academic methods.
• Admissions become more aligned with students’ real strengths, reducing mismatch.

---

Opposition/Contra team — core claims

Burden / mental pressure from adding tests

• Opposition argues that more tests and multiple stages (interviews, talent/interest tests, achievements, etc.) create:
  • overwhelming pressure
  • increased stress that harms mental health
• They emphasize that students already face heavy academic pressure and responsibilities.

Status quo already includes academic competence

• Opposition claims the current framework already contains multiple academic elements such as:
  • UTBK
  • academic competency tests (mentioned as implemented in grade 12)
• These are argued to be sufficient to interpret competence.

Government complexity

• Opposition claims adding more components makes the system harder to manage, potentially confusing the government and stakeholders.

Counter to pro’s “non-academic skills” argument

• Opposition argues that non-academic skills can still be developed via reasoning and structured academic questions, and through school learning over 12 years.
• They imply that soft skills are not absent, even if admissions emphasize academics.

Objectivity and fairness

• Opposition frames test-based measures (like UTBK) as comparatively more objective and consistent, using reasoning/math components as measurable indicators.
• They argue that adding interviews/talents risks subjectivity.

Vulnerable actors concern (as they frame it)

• Opposition asserts that too many requirements could disadvantage vulnerable groups due to:
  • needing to fulfill multiple assessment categories
  • limited access to resources or tutoring/knowledge about the process

---

Overall comparison / “who wins” (as concluded in the transcript)

• Both sides claim their approach is more inclusive, more valid, and better for students.
• In the final speaker’s conclusion:
  • Contra (opposition) claims it won “by a landslide,” arguing:
    • Pro’s case was idealized and lacked a clear causal framework.
    • Pro did not adequately show how vulnerable actors would be protected under the proposed multi-assessment system.
    • Opposition argued pressure would be worse with many added prerequisites.
  • Pro then offers a closing rebuttal claiming:
    • harms are symmetrical, but Pro’s system is more significant and more severe for the side that relies on a single test
    • Pro’s case better protects vulnerable groups through multi-factor assessment matrices and flexibility.

Actual scoring/results are not included in the subtitles—only debate wrap-up statements.

---

Speakers / sources featured (named in subtitles)

Jury chair / jury members

• Jury Chair / Speaker: E (identified by role as “chairman of the jury”; name not fully clear in subtitles)
• Jury members:
  • Mr. Rosadi (South Sumatra Province)
  • Dia Saprilia (Central Sulawesi Province)
  • Another jury member referred to as E (chair)—additional name not fully clear

Debate participants

• Pro team:
  • Safira (first speaker)
  • Kerly (second speaker)
  • [third pro speaker] name not clearly captured in subtitles (speaks third and closes substantive part)
• Opposition/Contra team:
  • Akmal (mentioned as part of speaker ordering; specific role not consistently clear)
  • [first opponent speaker] name not clearly captured in subtitles (delivers first opposing speech)
  • [second opponent speaker] name not clearly captured in subtitles (delivers second opposing speech)
  • [third opponent speaker] name not clearly captured in subtitles (final substantive and conclusion arguments for opposition)

Additional non-speaker sources

• Atmajaya University Yogyakarta (UAJY) (institutional content: motto, values, campuses, learning resources)
• UTBK / SNBT / OSN / TKA (mentioned as academic/admission-related frameworks, but not “sources” in the sense of people)