Thursday, 29 December 2011


Heluuu,,,ini aku Isna,ketemu lagi denganku:)
disini aku mau sharing,ini pengalamanku saat mengikuti lomba debat bahasa inggris tingkat Jawa Tengah.Mungkin bagi kalian ini sederhana,tapi buat aku ini amat sangat luar biasa sekali.karena kita cuma punya waktu prepare 3 hari.Bayangkan!!!!!!!hanya 3 hari-.-
Padahal lawan-lawan kami sudah sebulan latihan.Lagi-lagi kesalahan teknis yang membuat kami harus memeras otak,,,dan sekarang Kakak kami yang melatih kami dulu sedang study di korea karena mendapat beasiswa,dan kakak kami yang satunya sedang dapat beasiswa di Jakarta.SIAPA YANG AKAN MELATIH KITAAA?????
ALLAH yang akan membantu kami.Tak disangka,tak di duga,KAMI MENJADI JUARA !

dengan berbagai halangan yang kami hadapi,teman-teman ,,jika kamu mengalami masalah dan benar-benar sudah putus asa,ingat lah,,,TUHAN akan menolonh kita,walau itu cuma 0,01% kemungkinannya,,,tetap berjuanglah...jangan menyerah:)
aku mau berbagi tips-tips saat berdebate apabila kamu seorang debater,khususnya Austalasian Debate.


1 Introduction *
2 Overview: how adjudicators make their decisions and how they mark *
2.1 The decision *
2.2 Marking *
3 Speaker roles *
4 An Introduction to Manner, Matter and Method *
4.1 Matter *
4.2 Manner *
4.3 Method *
5 Conduct *
6 Common debating mistakes *
6.1 Definitions *
6.2 Summaries *
6.3 Points of information (for Murray and Douse) *
6.4 Case statements *
6.5 Palm cards *
6.6 Teamwork *
7 Guide for preparing for secret topic debates *
8 Rebuttal *
9 Points of Information (for the Murray, Douse and Crime Prevention competitions) *
9.1 Formalities *
9.2 Typical points of information: *
10 Recognising generic topics *
10.1 Is/ought (or normative/empirical) topics *
10.2 Big red ball topics *
10.3 Prohibition topics *
10.4 ‘X is a failure’ topics *
10.5 ‘That we should fear X’ topics *
  1. Introduction
  2. These notes are intended as a resource for school debaters. They identify a number of specific areas of debating, like rebutting, preparing for secret topic debates and using palm cards. The intention of most sections is to identify the basic principles of good debating that students should be aiming for and, where possible, to suggest some practical ways of addressing these principles. The first section, on how adjudicators make their decisions, has a different role. It is a guide for people new to debating, so that they understand the process an adjudicator is likely to follow in making a decision.
  3. Overview: how adjudicators make their decisions and how they mark
  4. An standard adjudication will provide:
    • feedback to debaters both on what they did well and where they could improve;
    • an analysis of the important issues in the debate and/or the features of the debate that were important in distinguishing the winner; and
    • a result and reasons for the result.
    The following discussion focuses on how adjudicators reach their decision and how they mark. It should be emphasised that these notes are a guide only and that adjudicators may adopt different approaches at times if they feel this is appropriate.
    1. The decision
    2. An adjudicator should take the standpoint of the ‘disinterested average reasonable person’ in assessing the arguments and presentation in a debate. Thus, the adjudicator’s own opinions, specialist knowledge or tastes should not influence how they view the debate. There will usually be more than one feature distinguishing the two teams. Common distinguishing features generally correspond to the components used for marking: matter, manner and method. For example, one team may win because:
      • on critical issues that team presents a superior case (matter); or
      • whilst the two cases are of comparable strength, that team had stronger rebuttal and points of information (matter); or
      • the presentation of that team was more engaging and convincing (manner); or
      • the structure and consistency of that team, either within each speech or throughout the speeches, was superior (method).
      By contrast, ‘technical’ faults are unlikely to be decisive in themselves although they may contribute to decisive considerations. For example, poor timing is a technical fault but it is usually associated with poor structure and prioritisation, which will have an impact on method. Similarly, the absence of a case statement is a technical fault but it is usually associated with looseness in the focus and clarity of arguments, which may affect matter and method. In making a decision, adjudicators attempt to weigh up the major substantive features distinguishing the teams throughout the course of the debate. In particular, they will attempt to avoid the ‘crescendo effect’ – the effect a good third speaker can have in making a team’s argument seem much stronger than it previously appeared. Debating is a team effort and can rarely be won or lost by one team member alone.
    3. Marking
    4. The most important part of marking is the result, then the margin, then the speaker scores, then the component scores (for matter, manner and method). Consequently, please do not place too much weight on individual scores and particularly on component scores – feedback from adjudicators is much more valuable. Whilst a speaker receives a score out of 100 (40 for matter, 40 for manner and 20 for method), the convention in debating is as follows: 80 = an outstanding speech, excellent in every respect; 75 = a good, average speech; 70 = a poor speech in every respect. In the ACT, adjudicators are expected to award marks in the 70-80 range and correspondingly, to mark the components in the range 28-32 (matter and manner) or 14-16 (method). There is also a requirement about the margin of victory. Again, debating convention has set certain interpretations for different margins: 1 = an extremely close win 2-3 = a close win 4-6 = a clear win 7-8 = an emphatic win 9-10 = the two teams were of entirely different standards Margins of 9-10 and individual scores of 70 or 80 are very rare, reserved for exceptional occasions. Where the individual scores suggest too large a margin (given the above interpretations), adjudicators will always fudge the marks. Similarly, if component marks suggest too large a total score, the component marks will be fudged. For this reason, students and teachers should place more emphasis on qualitative feedback than speaker scores.
  5. Speaker roles
  6. These points outline the bare bones of each speech. A speaker who covers all these points will have fulfilled the basic requirements of a good debating speech.
    • 1st Affirmative
    • 1) Define the topic: explain the issue of the debate, briefly describing the argument that each side must present. 2) Present affirmative case statement (also known as ‘case line’ or ‘team line’): this should briefly summarize the main argument of the team. 3) Present case division: state the arguments to be presented by the first and second speakers (third speakers need not be mentioned, as their role is rebuttal). 4) Present arguments: attempt to set out each argument separately and thematically, with the most important coming first. The first speaker may need to introduce a ‘model’ or a ‘test’. (See section 9.1 below for more on models and tests.) 5) Summarise: the speaker should briefly summarise the arguments raised in her/his speech, reiterate the arguments that are to be presented by the second speaker and link these to the case statement.
    • 1st Negative
    • 1) Where necessary, clarify the issue established by the affirmative’s definition. 2) Present affirmative case statement (also known as ‘case line’ or ‘team line’): this should briefly summarize the main argument of the team. 3) Present rebuttal: this should be thematic and address the most important points raised by the first affirmative speaker. 4) Present case division: state the arguments to be presented by the first and second speakers (third speakers need not be mentioned, as their role is rebuttal). 5) Present arguments: attempt to set out each argument separately and thematically, with the most important coming first. The first speaker may need to introduce a ‘counter model’. (See section 9.1 below for more on models.) 6) Summarise: the speaker should briefly summarise the arguments raised in her/his speech, reiterate the arguments that are to be presented by the second speaker and link these to the case statement.
    • 2nd Affirmative
    • 1) Present rebuttal: the speaker rebut the main points raised by the first negative speaker and respond to criticisms of arguments made by the first affirmative speaker. 2) Present arguments. 3) Summarise: the speaker should summarise not only the points made in their own speech, but the main points raised by their team as a whole.
    • 2nd Negative
    • 1) Present rebuttal: the speaker rebut the main points raised by the first affirmative speaker and respond to criticisms of arguments made by the first negative speaker. 2) Present arguments. 3) Summarise: the speaker should summarise not only the points made in their own speech, but the main points raised by their team as a whole.
    • 3rd Affirmative
    • 1) Present rebuttal: thematic rebuttal should address the key issues of the debate, relating the arguments and counter-arguments of the affirmative and negative. 2) Summarise: third speakers should allow time for a careful and convincing summary their team’s main arguments and the significant issues in the debate. Note: third speakers are not allowed to introduce any new matter into the debate.
    • 3rd Negative
    1) Present rebuttal: thematic rebuttal should address the key issues of the debate, relating the arguments and counter-arguments of the affirmative and negative. 2) Summarise: third speakers should allow time for a careful and convincing summary their team’s main arguments and the significant issues in the debate. Note: third speakers are not allowed to introduce any new matter into the debate.
  7. An Introduction to Manner, Matter and Method
  8. This is a brief overview of the major elements within a debating speech, those being manner, matter and method (for further information regarding the construction of speeches, please refer to section three – Speaker Roles). ACTDU is also currently working on a publication of ‘core competencies’ that will available in the near future, these will offer a much more detailed account of these areas.
    1. Matter
    2. Matter’ refers to the arguments presented by the speaker. Good matter involves convincing, logical arguments supported with clear, relevant examples, analogies or statistics.
    3. Manner
    4. ‘Manner’ refers to the presentation of a speaker’s arguments. The key to good manner is that a speaker engages the audience, thereby making their arguments more convincing. Different speakers may successfully engage the audience in different ways – a variation of styles is encouraged. However, there are some basic techniques that will usually assist the presentation of a speech. Speakers should make eye contact with the audience and the adjudicator. Speakers should speak clearly and should have some variation within their speech. Variation might include changing the pace of delivery, changing the volume of delivery or pausing for effect.
    5. Method
    ‘Method’ refers to the structure of arguments presented by a speaker. For each speaker, good structure involves identifying the key issues, addressing them without repetition and allocating the most time to the most important issues. For the team, good structure involves a series of speeches that present a consistent and coherent set of arguments. Team structure is assisted by a good ‘case statement’ and ‘case division’. Method varies within each of these areas, but ultimately, relies on the principle of being ordered and clear in the way that you present your arguments.
  9. Conduct
  10. It is important that people enjoy debating as much as possible. For this reason there are a number of guidelines that debaters should be aware of regarding conduct within a debate
    1. Swearing in debating is strongly discouraged. If a debater accidentally swears, adjudicators would be unlikely to deduct marks, however, if swearing is frequent or deliberate, adjudicators would be justified in taking off manner marks.
    2. Adjudicators are able to call order. If debates become rowdy or heated, if points of information continue for too long, if a speaker is being harassed by the other team or if there are interjections then the adjudicator may call order. If this occurs, everyone except the speaker should be quiet, in the case of points of information, they should not be offered for, at the least, a few moments.
    Running a case that is overtly sexist, racist or discriminatory is strongly discouraged. It is acknowledged however, that sometimes it can be a fine distinction between running an extreme case and an offensive case. We ask students and teachers to exercise careful judgement in these matters. Furthermore, it must be noted, that if any person, whether a debater, the adjudicator or a member of the audience, finds an argument to be offensive then a complaint can be made to the duty officer which will then be reported to the ACTDU committee.
  11. Common debating mistakes
    1. Definitions
    2. Debaters often define topics word-by-word, even using a dictionary. Occasionally a discussion of key words in the topic may be useful but this should only occur to the extent that it helps elucidate the issue for debate. Example One. On the topic ‘That Australia should become a republic’, the affirmative might elaborate on the key word ‘republic’ so that the issue of the debate is argument where the affirmative will support the replacement of the Queen and governor-general with a head of state elected by two-thirds of parliament. Example Two. On the topic ‘That we should swim against the tide’ the affirmative is likely to identify the issue as non-conformity. They may then try to create the issue at a general level – that is it better not to conform. Alternatively, they may choose to narrow the topic to a topical issue of non-conformity, perhaps whether Australia conforms to international norms. Thus, the issue would be revolve around the affirmative’s argument that Australia should, in several specific ways, ignore or reject various international norms whilst the negative would argue that Australia should embrace those norms. (Note: this example is more sophisticated than what we would expect from any school debater.)
    3. Summaries
    4. Debaters often fail to summarise or summarise very briefly. A good summary can add considerable cohesion to a speech and a debate.
    5. Points of information (for Murray and Douse)
    6. Debaters new to points of information often fail to offer many points during the debate. They should offer roughly two per opposing speaker. Whenever they hear a bad argument, they should be encouraged to formulate a short response in their head and then jump up and say ‘point of information’. (See section 8 for more on points of information.)
    7. Case statements
    8. Some debaters do not give a case statement, more often debaters give a case statement but fail to it as the focus for their arguments. The case statement should be an all-encompassing reason for the team’s position which serves as a prop for all other arguments. Used well, it provides valuable cohesion and clarity to a team. Example Three: The affirmative case statement to ‘That the Greens have failed’ may be that the Greens have failed because the Greens are too radical. The first half of the division might be that the Greens are too radical to win media support and this has meant that they have failed to fulfil their goals. The second half might be that the Greens are too radical to win popular support, again causing them to fail to meet their goals.
    9. Palm cards
    10. Young debaters frequently rely too heavily on palm cards, to the extent that some even type the whole speech out. This should be strongly discouraged as it inhibits successful debating. (See section 7 for techniques for teaching the use of notes.)
    11. Teamwork
    Debaters may often present good individual speeches but not work well as a team. If joint preparation time is limited, it should be concentrated on developing a case statement and case division that team members will stick to and then team members should compare speeches shortly before the debate so that they can summarise one another’s arguments effectively.
  12. Guide for preparing for secret topic debates
    1. Brainstorm definition (5 minutes): What is the issue to be debated? What will the affirmative have to argue on this issue? What will the negative have to argue? Discuss this together so that all team members have the same conception of what the debate is about.
    2. Brainstorm arguments (5 minutes): individually, think of any relevant arguments; scribble them down; if possible, try to group them logically.
    3. Pool ideas, identify main arguments (10 minutes): Run through the arguments by each speaker, trying to identify any similar or common arguments. Group similar arguments together, try to find a natural division. Seek a foundational argument or reason that underpins the other arguments – this will be the case statement. At this stage, the team should also confirm the definition.
    4. Prepare speeches (20 minutes): first and second speakers should work on their speeches, constructing main arguments and developing sub-arguments and examples or analogies to support them. The third speaker should be ready to share ideas and otherwise should be anticipating the possible arguments of the opposition.
    5. Compare (10 minutes): Make sure that each team member understands all the main arguments and that the speeches are all relevant to each other. Prepare case summaries.
    6. Anticipate rebuttal (5 minutes): Discuss possible arguments of the opposition and possible rebuttal.
    7. Fire up! Give yourself time to collect your thoughts and convince yourself of your case.
  13. Rebuttal
  14. Rebuttal is one of the most important parts of debating. It refers to the response that debaters make to the arguments of the opposing team. Different speakers should handle rebuttal slightly differently (for example, the rebuttal by a first negative should be brief enough to allow the negative to develop their own case fully, see section three – Speaker Roles – for more details). However there are some key aspects within effective rebuttal that can be identified regardless of where a person speaks within a debate. Firstly, ‘thematic rebuttal’ is always more effective than ‘point-by-point rebuttal’. Point-by-point rebuttal refers to simply responding one by one to the arguments presented by the other side. There are a number of problems associated with this type of rebuttal. Firstly, it is very easy to miss an argument that may become important later on in the debate. Secondly, it can take a very long time to get through all of the arguments presented by the opposition, and this takes away valuable time from the team’s substantive matter. A much more effective, fast and comprehensive approach to rebuttal is thematic rebuttal. That is, identify the major themes within the opposition’s case and attack those. In using thematic rebuttal, a speaker can also much more readily identify and address the key issues in the debate. A good analogy for rebuttal is that of a tree. The case statement and relevant themes of a case are the trunk, the arguments are the branches and the examples used are the twigs. If you wanted to knock the tree down, it makes a lot more sense to go straight for the trunk, rather than breaking off the twigs and branches. Indeed, sometimes it is appropriate to ignore the twigs and smaller branches (the examples) to give enough time for attacking the trunk and main branches (the main arguments). For example, suppose that an affirmative team presented the following arguments for the topic ‘That physical education should be an elective’.
    1. Students have a right to choose other subjects so why not physical education?
    2. Students are exposed to unnecessary risk of physical injury.
    3. Students can get sporting involvement outside the school in extra curricular activities.
    4. There is poor funding within schools even for maths and science, let alone physical education. These other subject should have priority.
    5. There is a shortage of qualified physical education teachers
    Rather than responding to these arguments one by one, it is better to group them into two themes: for example the interests of the students (arguments 1, 2 and 3); and the concerns of the schools (arguments 4 and 5).
  15. Points of Information
    (for the Murray, Douse and Crime Prevention competitions)
    1. Formalities
    2. Points of information are only offered to opposing speakers. To offer a point of information the ‘offerer’ should stand in her/his place, say ‘point of information’ and wait. The speaker will either:
      • accept the point straight away;
      • ask the offerer to wait, and then accept the point; or
      • decline the point, in which case the offerer should sit down.
      If a point is accepted, the offerer has roughly 10 seconds to make a point that is short, pertinent and possibly witty. Most importantly, it should be short. Points of information afford enough time for one or two sentences only so a significant skill is being able to get a powerful point out briefly. This really is the same skill as the politician’s ten-second sound bite. Speakers should usually accept 2 points of information during their speech (more will than two usually interferes with structure, timing and therefore method; less than two will usually look cowardly and may affect matter). Debaters should offer at least 2 points per opposing speech. There is no maximum except for politeness – offering too many points too quickly will be interpreted as badgering and may lose manner marks.
    3. Typical points of information:
    4. Clarification of the definition. Eg, ‘Point of information: what sort of republic do you support?’ Counter-example. Eg, ‘Point of information: you say that sanctions work but sanctions have been imposed on Cuba for more than 30 years.’ Drawing attention to a forgotten argument. Eg, ‘Point of information: when will you respond to our argument that the media won’t give the Greens favourable coverage because the Greens are too radical?’ Bad logic. Eg, ‘Point of information: your first speaker said that we should be tough on dole bludgers but now you’re saying that Work for the Dole is the best way to help them. Surely you can’t have it both ways.’ Clarification of test. Eg, ‘Point of information: do you have a test for determining whether the Greens have failed or are you just going to give us a shopping list of examples?’ Clarification of model. Eg, ‘Point of information: are you saying that in your proposal for drug law reform, all drugs would be legal?’
  16. Recognising generic topics
  17. Many topics have a similar structure and therefore the same style of preparation and argument can often be applied to them. The following list is merely illustrative of the way topic types can be analysed.
    1. Is/ought (or normative/empirical) topics
    2. Normative topics are topics about what should be the case, empirical topics are topics about what is the case. Thus, ‘That we should reform the welfare state’ is normative whereas ‘That the welfare state is alive and well’ is empirical (the issue in the latter topic involves an analysis of what ‘the welfare state’ commonly refers to and whether current policies meet this description). Empirical topics often contain a normative component. For example, ‘That Australians watch too much sport’ requires an analysis of how much sport Australians watch and whether this is too much. Normative topics often require a ‘model’. A model is a specific proposal, usually to be implemented by an organisation (eg, the Government, the church, the UN, the international community) that provides more detail about the issue to be debated. Thus, in a debate about the republic, it is necessary to introduce a model of what sort of republic is being supported. A negative team should present a counter-model, although often that will just involve supporting the status quo. For example, the affirmative in a drug law reform debate might propose that, to address drug-related problems, marijuana be decriminalised. The negative can just support the current system and say they support the current emphasis on policing. Models are useful because they clarify the issue of the debate. Essentially, they are just an extension of the definition. Empirical topics often require a test (or burden of proof, or yardstick). A test is a measure against which a claim can be established. For example, ‘That the Greens have failed’ requires a test of failure. This might hinge on electoral impact, it might hinge on popular support and changes in attitudes, it might hinge on legislative change or it might be a combination of all three. Another example, ‘That Australians watch too much sport’ requires a test of ‘too much’. This might focus on the point where the personal effects of TV watching are deleterious or circumstances where the societal effects of TV watching are deleterious, or both.
    3. Big red ball topics
    4. (eg That the United States is an evil empire) To show that something is a big red ball, one must show that the thing is: big, red and a ball. So, ‘big red ball topics’ refer to topics that require the affirmative to prove several points. Often, only one of these points becomes an issue in the debate but the affirmative must begin by arguing all points. Furthermore, the points should not be split between speakers, that is, the team should not set the first speaker to prove the thing is a red ball and the second speaker to prove it is big. This is a ‘hung argument’ and is strategically weak because the case is not proven until the end of the second speech. Case divisions should identify two arguments that independently prove the case.
    5. Prohibition topics
    6. (eg That we should legalise prostitution, That pornography should be banned, That we should legalise marijuana, That we should ban land mines, That we should legalise euthanasia, That abortion should be illegal) All of these topics involve banning something or lifting a ban. There are several standard arguments in such debates. Argument one. Lifting a ban usually allows regulation of a previously unregulated activity, which could improve safety and allow for taxation (eg regulated prostitution means condoms and information on STDs can be provided to sex workers). Argument two. Bans don’t work, they just drive the problem into the black market. Typical example is the prohibition on alcohol in the US in the 1920s. Argument three. Bans send a strong moral message. Argument four. We don’t legalise things just because bans aren’t totally effective – otherwise we’d legalise murder!
    7. ‘X is a failure’ topics
    8. (eg That the Greens have failed, That feminism has failed, That economic rationalism is a failure) These topics ask us what X has achieved (an empirical question) and what X ought to have been able to achieve. The latter component is not really normative, although words like ‘failure’ and ‘success’ have normative overtones. What is important for discussing what X ought to have been able to achieve is a ‘test’ or ‘standard’ of what is achievable for entities like X. For example, on the topic ‘That feminism has failed’, the test of failure might be the inability to achieve substantial legislative or societal change regarding women’s rights. This still leaves the question of what constitutes ‘substantial change’ but the point of a test is to give a guide for interpreting vague terms like failure. A test cannot turn a vague term into a perfectly precise term.
    9. ‘That we should fear X’ topics
    10. (eg That we should fear the rise of Pauline Hanson, That we should fear the collapse of Indonesia) These topics ask us to speculate about what events X is likely to cause (which makes the topic similar to an empirical topic) AND to argue that those events are bad (giving the topic a normative component). Like ‘X is a failure’ topics, the normative component does not require a model. For example, the topic on Pauline Hanson does not require a discussion of an alternative to Hansonism. Instead, it requires an analysis of the merits of Hansonism.


Haaaiiii,,this is my awesome experience when i join in national competition.Saat itu di Bandung,aku bertemu dengan anak0anak berprestasi se-Indonesia.Aku menjadi perwakilan kontingen Jawa Tengah.Aku benar-benar merasakan berkah dari belajar bahasa Inggris.Its really nice:)
Disana ada serangkaian lomba yang harus kita jalani.Ada Role Play,Story Telling,Writing,Speaking ,Presentasion.Disini aku mau bagi-bagi tips buat temen-temen bagaimana cara latihan speaking yang paling jitu.Semoga bermanfaat yaah..

General Tips

Good communication comes in many forms and styles. No rule is ever set in stone and breaking the rules can sometimes be the best way to get your point across. You should figure out what works best for you and develop your own style. The tips I have included here should help most people become better speakers, but please take them and leave them as you wish.
Don't be fooled into thinking that rhetoric is an innate ability - it is a learned skill. Behind every perfect delivery is hours of careful preparation. The only way to become a good speaker is to practice. Take every opportunity you can to speak. No suggestion will do you any good if you don't take the time to apply it.
Whenever you do speak, always dress appropriately. You should look at least as good as your audience does. If you are appearing as an authority on your subject, dress better than your audience, if possible.
Always try to be informed on your subject. An audience can usually tell if you don't know what you are talking about. If someone asks a question you don't have the answer to, it is okay to say that you aren't sure. Be especially careful when your words may have undesired consequences.
After you speak, take the time to note what you did well and what you want to improve. You may also want to ask a friend to evaluate part or all your speech. When you do, remember that they are giving you their opinion. Don't become defensive at what they say. Their evaluation may give you valuable insight. On the other hand, it may be wrong. Either way, it can be a good learning experience.

Tuesday, 27 December 2011


Ketemu aku lagiiiiJ...mari sharing-sharing pengalaman di blogku ini teman-temanJ
Whaaa...kemarin aku ditunjuk sekolah untuk mengikuti lomba pramuka tingkat Provinsi Jawa Tengah.That is my great experience.Kami mengirim 2 regu,yaitu regu putra dan regu putri.Naa’as dan mengenaskan,,,kami dilepas sendiri,dengan uang saku yang diberi sekolah,tanpa pembimbing,Bener-bener harus super mandiri,Lomba itu diadakan di IKIP PGRI Semarang.
Berhari-hari lomba diadakan , dan kami hanya membawa sepasang pakaian pramuka , sepasang baju ganti ,Alat mandi dan tikar.Maklum,,,anak Pramuka tidak mengenal hotel,wisma dan tempat peristirahatan lainnya (ngomong aja mau ngirit,hihii),Saat itu aku duduk di kelas 2.dan bayangkan,,,siswa kelas 2 dilepas sendiri  berhari-hari dengan uang saaku yang pas-pasan(sok dramatis)
Melihat kontingen lain yang  di antar guru dengan sarana yang lengkap  tidak membuat kami minder kok,easy going ajah,,,hahah.
Kami gagal dibeberapa perlombaan.saat itu aku ditunjuk untuk mengikuti lomba bagian Desain Logo dan Argumentasi bahasa inggris,Alhamdulillah banget untuk desain logo aku mendapat peringkat ke 2(dari bawah) ,seperti disambar petir rasanya deh,,hehehhe
Tapi,,,Alhamdulillah banget aku dapet juara 3.Paling tidak itu bisamenyembuhkan rasa penat,letih dan jengkel dari teman-teman kontingenku.Terimakasih Allah,hari itu aku bisa mencapai juara 3 Provinsi Jawa Tengah ,dan bisa membanggakan bapak /ibu dirumah.
Sendiri bukan berarti kita tak berdaya lo teman-teman.
Ini ceritaku,,apa ceritamu:*

waktu itu aku ga sempet potos-potos,jadi adane itu,waaah,,kucel abis,maklumlah habis teempur:)


Hai teman-temanku ...ketemu lagi dengan aku..ini pengalamanku saat aku mengikuti lomba Pramuka yang paling bergengsi di Salatiga. Jujur,aku bukan ahli morse,semaphore,sandi-sandi, tali temali dan sebagainya.dari serangkaian seleksi yang aku ikuti,,,karena ijin Allah aku bisa lolos.sesuatu banget pokoknya...
Ini bukan sembarang lomba,,tim kami ada 7 orang,kami harus berjuang mati-matian supaya piala bergilir yang kami kuasai bertahun-tahun tidak pindah ke pihak lain dan menjadi piala tetap kami.Sebuah tanggung jawab yang tidak simple,
Persiapan kami  amat sangat matang , dari detail sekecil apapun itu kita persiapkan.Setiap hari kami latihan , menguras otak dan tenaga.Sampai pada akhirnya hari perlombaanpun dimulai.Lomba diadakan 2 hari.Yang pertama indoor dan yang kedua adalaah outdoor.Perlombaan outdoor sangatlah luar biasa tantangannya..kita harus melewati Halang Lintang sejauh 17 km (ngebayangin ga kamu gimana jauhnya???jalan kaki meen...)..tapi ga masalah buat kami yang berasal dari kontingen SMK N 2 Salatiga,karena fisik kita bener-bener udah di gemblengJ,jadi dont be worry ,,,

Semua kita lakukan dengan sungguh-sungguh,bukan juara yang kita cari,,tapi melakukan yang terbaik adalah visi kita...nah hloh...kamu tahu yang terjadi??Atas ijin Allah kami dari SMK N 2 Salatiga meraih juara 1 untuk regu putra dan juara 2 untuk regu putri dengan selisih nilai 0,4...wah,,wah,,,terbuktikan,,,latihan yang matang hasilnya pun maksimal.Tetep,ga boleh lupa berdoa:*
Ini ceritaku,apa ceritamu??:*


Haluuuuu...ketemu aku lagiJ.aku mau cerita tentang pengalamanku saat mengikuti  Lomba Debat Bahasa Inggris tingkat Provinsi Jawa Tengah tahun 2010.dengan persiapan kita yang amat sangat minim..yaitu hanya seminggu.di banding dengan kontingen yang lain yang sudah berlatih sudah berbulan-bulan.Kontingen kami telat mendapat surat Perlombaannya karena  suatu hal..Alhamdulillah saat itu ,,aku dan ketiga temanku di percaya oleh kota Salatiga untuk mewakili ke Jateng.Debate bahasa inggris dengan motions seabrek,,,dimana kita harus mempersiapkan tugas-tugas sekolah kami yang sudah mendekati deadline,tanggungan proposal-proposal kegiatan..huaaaa,,,ajib banget.
Tapi gapapalah,,kita yang tanpa guru pembimbing,harus latihan sendiri dengan bimbingan dari kakak kelas kami yang namanya kak Satriya Sulistiyo Aji.Luar biasa,,kami bisa mandiri dan berlatih tanpa mengeluh.Waktu kami memang singkat dan tidak memungkinkan kami bisa menyelesaikan berpuluh-puluh motions yang ada.
Sampai  pada hari perlombaan,kami melihat dari kontingen-kontingen lain di bimbing oleh guru-guru yang kelihaatan expert banget.tapi tenag aja,,kita juga dibimbing oleh kakak kita yang lebih expert dari mereka,itu menurut kami,,,
Itu adalah pertama kalinya kota Salatiga mengikut sertakan peserta di bidang lomba debat bahasa inggris.Tanggung jawab yang semakin membakar semangat kami untuk melakukan semaksimal mungkin.Kami berjuang sampai titik darah penghabisan(leebaaaay,,,biarin!)hahaha.
Allah memang luar biasa baik dengan hambanya,,,kami yang persiapan minim,tanpa guru pendamping,dengan pikiran yang terbagi-bagi ,,ga disangka-sangka kami bisa masuk babak final dan menjadi runner-up setelah mengalahkan purbalingga,pekalongan dan kota-kota lainnya.alhamdulillah yah...Ya!kami memang debater,,,tapi tidak semua hal kami perdebatkan,banyak orang yang berfikir debate adalah hal tidak penting.Tapi jika kamu orang yang berfikir logis,debat adalah sesuatu yang menyenangkan ,dimana kita harus bisa berfikir logis ,realistis, melihat suatu masalah dari 2 sisi yang membuat kita lebih bijak dalam kehidupan sehari-hari.Dari masalah ekonomi ,politik, masalah pendidikan di Indonesia sampai masalah internasional.Setidaknya kami percayaa ..Kami selangkah lebih maju dari kalian yang ,meremehkan kami.:*
Terimakasih Allah buat semuanya,jangan kalah dengan keadaan,,,J
Jangan kalah ma keadaan ya guys,,,ini ceritaku,,apa ceritamu..??
Saling share yaaah...


Hai...hai teman-teman , perkenalkan.namaku Isnawati Hidayah.Aku siswi kelas 3 di SMK N 2 Salatiga.Aku mau berbagi dengan kalian tentang apa yang terjadi dalam hidupku , semoga bermanfaat .Mari kita saling berbagi .Disini aku mau share pengalaman-pengalamanku  tentang kehidupan realku yang bener-bener aku bisa ngerasain dimana  kita ga boleh kalah ma keadaan.
Saat duduk di kelas 1 SMK , aku memutuskan untuk menjadi siswa yang aktif disekolah (kata temen-temen sih sok sibuk..tapi whatever lah,,,hihi J ).Pada saat itu aku bergabung di Ambalan Bima-Arimbi,yaitu  suatu organisasi kepramukaan tingkat penegak di sekolahku yang terkenal dengan kegiatannya yang super duper padat.Selain itu aku juga ikut PASKIBRA SMK N 2 SALATIGA yang  notabene bener-bener melatih kedisiplinan kita,dan ada satu kegiatan yang aku ikuti dan itu bener-bener membuatku jatuh cintaaa banget.Namane English Debate Club .Itu adalah sebuah ekstrakulikuler  berbasis bahasa inggriss yang benar-benar aku anggap seperti keluargaku sendiri.Aku belajar banyak hal yang luar biasa.mau tahu clubnya..kunjungi ajah
Pada suatu hari , kira-kira tanggal 28 Agustus 2010 , ada 2 event yang sama-sama penting dalam hidup aku.Yang pertama adalah Pemilihan Paski Kota Salatiga,dimana aku udah persiapan dan latihan setahun lebih.Yang kedua adalah Lomba Debat Tingkat Kota Salatiga dan aku udah dipercayai dan ditunjuk pihak sekolah.Pada hari itu aku merasa bagai makan buah simalakama.Aku harus mengorbankan salah satu dari event itu.Aku galau banget (ciyeeee,,,)...tapi galaunya paling 5 menit .karena satu hal yang selalu aku inget, Allah is my everything,Jadi aku pasrahin  semuanya ma yang diatas.Dengan memikirkan berbagai pertimbangan ,,,aku akhirnya memilih mengikuti lomba debate tersebut,karena basicku emang di public speaking.
Aku harus mengikhlaskan latihan Paski-ku selama berbulan-bulan hanya untuk mengikuti lomba debate.Mengkinn beberapa orang berfikir keputusanku ini konyol.Dimana aku udah latihan setiap hari , panas-panas ,ujan-ujan.tiap hari latihan mpe jam 5 sore lebih , gilaaaa banget.Tapi no problem buat aku,,,aku pertimbangin berdasarkan petunjuk-Nya dan kemantapan hati.Aku percaya PENGORBANAN itu TIDAK ADA YANG SIA-SIAJ..ALLAH ga tidur kok,,,

Hari lomba Debatepun tiba , kami anggota English Debate Club menuju tempat bertarung dengan hati deg-degseeeerr,,,dan kalian tahu apa yang terjadi????Alhamdulillah juara 1 dapat kami rebut.Timku berisi 3 anggota ,yaitu aku , Ghandie Kurniawidi dan Hanif Mussawam.Terimakasih buat semuanya..itu adalah hari pertama aku mendapatkan my first honour , uangnya ku tabung sebagian , aku syukuran dengan teman-teman EDC dan keluarga,,dan tak lupa aku menggunakan uang pertamaku itu untuk membelikan hadiah seseorang yang paling aku sayang tapi bukan keluargaku:*
Teman-teman ,ini pengalamanku yang mungkin bagi kalian biasa aja...tapi buatku sangat luar biasa,sekali lagi...I LOVE ALLAH
Pengorbanan memang ga pernah sia-sia,mantapkan hati untuk memutuskan suatu hal.:*
Sampai ketemu lain waktuuuu:*

ada yg ngidam beasiswa S3 Jerman? :D

The Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences (BIGSSS) invites applications to its Ph.D. program. The program will commence on September 1st, 2012.
Successful applicants for the Ph.D. and Post-doc fellowships will pursue a topic in one of BIGSSS’ five Thematic Fields:
  • Global Integration
  • Integration and Diversity in the New Europe
  • Social Integration and the Welfare State
  • Attitude Formation, Value Change and Intercultural Communication
  • Life-Course and Lifespan Dynamics
All fellows are expected to choose Bremen as their place of residence.
Financial Support:
BIGSSS offers 15 Ph.D. stipends of 1250 Euros/month for 36 months, contingent on successful completion of each year. To support its Ph.D. fellows in achieving early scientific independence, it also provides funds for conducting, presenting and publishing research. There is no separate funding application, because all admitted applicants receive a stipend.
Admission Requirements:
  • An excellent MA degree (or national equivalents like the German “Diplom” or “Magister”) in a discipline pertinent to at least one of BIGSSS’ five Thematic fields (see above), i.e. in Political Science (including related degree programs in European Studies or International Relations), Sociology, Psychology, Law, Economics or Mass Communication. The degree must be completed by the end of July of the year of application, which means you may apply before having finished your MA degree.
  • English proficiency as described in the application materials section below.
  • Additionally BIGSSS offers 2 Preparatory Fellowships to particularly talented BA Graduates.
Diversity and Anti-Discrimination
BIGSSS believes that diverse backgrounds and ideas are crucial to academic excellence. Therefore, BIGSSS welcomes and promotes diversity and ensures equal opportunity and inclusion for all of its members regardless of ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, age or (dis-)ability.
Application Deadline
The application period for the Fall 2012 semester will begin in the middle of December 2011 and go until March 15th, 2012. The deadline refers to the date of receipt of the application. All letters of recommendation must also reach BIGSSS by March 15th, 2012.
For more information, please visit official website:
saling berbagi:)

Nieman Fellowships in Global Health Reporting, Harvard University, USA.saling berbagi:)

The Nieman Foundation will award two fellowships for 2012-2013: one to a journalist from the United States and one to a non-U.S. citizen. During their Nieman year, the Global Health fellows will be part of the Nieman Class of 2013 and will participate in weekly activities at the Nieman Foundation. They will have the opportunity to study at Harvard’s School of Public Health and will have access to faculty and courses across the university through the Harvard Initiative for Global Health.
At the conclusion of their year at Harvard, the global health reporting fellows will begin three four months of journalistic fieldwork in a developing nation. The fieldwork is intended to provide an intensive learning and reporting experience in countries where the most pressing issues in global health exist. At the conclusion of the fieldwork, the fellows will be expected to produce a body of work that might include stories for publication, a case study focusing on the complex issues in global health journalism or a handbook of best practices related to reporting on health in a developing nation.
Candidates nominate themselves by submitting an application and supporting materials. There is no age limit and no educational prerequisite for a Nieman Fellowship in Global Health Reporting.
  • One fellowship will be awarded to a citizen of the United States and one to a non-U.S. citizen. If you have questions about eligibility, please contact Stefanie Friedhoff by e-mail at
  • You must be fluent in speaking, reading and writing English.
  • You must have five or more years of full-time or freelance professional journalism experience in the news media. Work you have done as a university student or for a nongovernmental or governmental organization will not count toward fulfilling this requirement.
  • Your professional experience must be with the news or editorial departments of newspapers, wire services, radio or television stations or networks, online publications or magazines of general interest. We will not consider candidates from public relations or organizations that do not produce general-interest news.
  • Your employer must grant you a leave of absence for the academic year at Harvard and the three to four-month field work experience, a total of 13-14 months. Your employer also must state the intent of your news organization to use, as much as practical, your skills and knowledge in the coverage of global health when you return to work.
All of your application materials, including letters of recommendation, must be sent to the address at the bottom of this page and must be postmarked on or before January 31, 2012.
The Nieman Foundation cannot pay customs fees or other shipping charges for your application materials. You can avoid these costs by using the online application. If you are mailing your application from outside the United States, please consider the length of time it takes mail from your country to reach the U.S.
If any of the information related to your application changes after you have submitted it, please notify us immediately by e-mail at
Send all application materials to:
Class of 2013 Global Health Fellowship
Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard
One Francis Avenue
Cambridge MA 02138-2009
Send samples that best illustrate your interests and abilities. Your samples must have been published or aired between Jan. 1, 2011, and Jan. 31, 2012. You may submit one sample from before Jan. 1, 2011, as a substitute for one required sample. (Note the exception below for documentary filmmakers.) If you routinely work in more than one medium, you may submit samples from each as long as you follow the guidelines below.
If your work samples are not in English, please include a summary of their contents in English. Your supporting statements and synopses must also be in English.
All printed samples, summaries and synopses must be formatted to fit 8 1/2” x 11” (21.5 x 28 centimeters) sheets of paper. Write your name in the upper right corner of every item you submit (or on the backs of photographs). Do not send complete newspapers or magazines, books, scrapbooks, unpublished manuscripts, works-in-progress, irreplaceable material, elaborate presentations (for example, spiral bindings or report covers) or “creative” displays such as video presentations of still photographs. We will not accept work that does not meet these criteria.
Please clearly date all your samples and do not send more than the requested number. We cannot return any submitted material, so make copies of everything you send.
Broadcast Journalists (Note: If in English, submit a DVD/CD totaling 30 minutes with a synopsis)
  • Radio and Television: Submit a written synopsis of five stories that are representative of your work with a brief description of your involvement in each story — for example, producing and editing.
  • Documentary: Submit a written synopsis of your work samples and a brief description of your involvement with the works — for example, writing the script and directing. Your samples must have been broadcast or shown in a public venue in the past two years.
Print Journalists
  • Writers: Submit samples of five different published works. (Each byline counts as one sample.) If you send stories from a series, include a brief outline of the other stories in the series.
  • Editors: Submit a statement describing your job. (This is in addition to your two essays.) You may include copies of published work along with a description of your role in these samples. For published work, follow the instructions for writers.
  • Photographers: Submit a portfolio with eight samples of your work: original prints, tear sheets or a combination of both. Photographs must be 8” x 10” (20.5 x 25.5 centimeters) and may be black and white or color. Do not mount your photos.
Online Journalists: Submit samples equivalent to five print articles or 30 minutes of programming, along with a statement describing your job, your involvement with each sample and whether each was created for the Web or adapted from another media format. (Your statement is in addition to your two essays.) Your samples must be journalistic in nature and demonstrate that your job involves news gathering, writing, editing or producing.
  • Write your name in the upper right corner of all items you submit as part of your application.
  • Complete, date and sign pages 6 through 9 of this application form.
  • Include work samples as described on page 3 of this application.
  • Write two essays:
    • One personal statement of 1,000 words or less that describes your journalistic experience, career plans and aspirations
    • One proposal for study at Harvard of 1,000 words or less. Include in this proposal your ideas for subjects or fields of concentration in global health and how you anticipate using in your journalistic work the knowledge you gain during your Nieman year and fourmonth practicum. You do not need to list specific course titles and you also should not submit a plan for the fieldwork phase of the fellowship. Global Health reporting fellows will develop their plan during the Nieman year with guidance from the Nieman Foundation.
These essays are critical to your application. The Selection Committee will carefully evaluate them to understand your accomplishments, your potential and your commitment to covering global health. We are particularly interested in examples and details that show you have a significant capacity for growth and leadership as a journalist. We also want to know specifically how an academic year at Harvard and four months of fieldwork in a developing country will improve your work as a journalist covering global health.
We also require four confidential letters of recommendation:
  • Two from people familiar with your work who can comment on your journalistic abilities and potential.
  • One from your immediate supervisor commenting on your qualifications for this fellowship.
  • One from your news organization’s publisher, editor, manager or director supporting your application and granting you a 14-month leave of absence if you are awarded a fellowship. Please tell the person who writes this letter that it must include an expression of intent to use, as much as practical, the skills and knowledge you develop in covering global health issues when you return to work.
Freelance journalists should have four people familiar with their work write letters.
Please ask the individuals who write letters to tell us specifically how your abilities and experience make you an outstanding candidate for a Nieman Fellowship in Global Health Reporting. Letters of recommendation should be mailed directly to the Nieman Foundation at the address at the bottom of page 2 in time to receive a postmark on or before January 31, 2012.
Nieman Fellows in Global Health Reporting will receive a maximum stipend of $78,000 over a period of 13 months (less if fieldwork is only 3 months), September 2012 through September 2013, at $6,000 per month. The first nine months will be spent studying at Harvard and the last three to four months will be spent doing fieldwork in a developing country. During the nine-month period at Harvard, families are invited to participate and a housing allowance and childcare supplement will be provided. Costs for attending classes at Harvard are also covered for fellows and affiliates.
For more information, please visit official website:
semoga bermanfaat:)

aku sekarang duduk dikelas 3 SMK tahun 2011/2012,kalau ada info saling berbagi:)


Mercury is emitted into the environment via natural processes such as volcanic eruptions and industrial processes in large refineries and coal fired electricity generation facilities. This PhD research project aims to deliver highly sensitive and selective sensors for the online monitoring of mercury which can operate under the harsh environments found in many industrial applications. The research project will focus on developing tailored nano-engineered metallic and bimetallic surfaces through facile electrochemical and chemical methods and studying their interaction with mercury vapour at the nano level.
The positions are based at the City campus of the School of Applied Sciences through a joint collaborative project with Alcoa World Alumina (Australia) and BHP Billiton.
Two scholarships available, each valued at $27,000 per year for 3 years
Open to both local and international students.
The successful applicants will have a first class honours Bachelor degree in either applied sciences or chemical engineering, with a strong desire to work in the field of chemical sensors and/or material sciences.
How to apply
Contact Professor Suresh Bhargava.
Opening date: Mid 2011
Closing date: March 2012
More information
Top-up Scholarship of up to $10,000 per annum is available to doctoral students who gain an Australian Postgraduate Award (APA) scholarship starting in 2012.
For further information please contact Dr Samuel Ippolito or Professor Suresh Bhargava.
For more information, please visit official website:


saling berbagi:)