Arguing in the First Debate of the Incumbent Most Nyontek
Liputan Digital. The inaugural debate held on Thursday night (17/01/19) resulted in the Prabowo-Sandi camp and also the incumbent camp, giving each other their opposing arguments. As well as the responses from the candidate pairs also helped to strengthen the atmosphere that occurred in the first debate of the 2019 vice presidential candidate.
For example, one of the themes that raises the issue of law and human rights in Indonesia. Where often people in Indonesia are confronted with legal issues, including the assertiveness of human rights issues. And the context is how firmness and law enforcement must be put forward? And in what context should it be a concern?
Then regarding this matter, Prabowo-Sandi and the incumbent responded with different arguments. It was said by the Kubu incumbent that legal action with human rights issues could not be equated with its position. However, this assumption was not approved by the Prabowo-Sandi faction, that according to him there were still many cases in Indonesia which were judged that the legal apparatus was biased.
Both of these arguments make the two ideas collide with each other, and the things that are the subject of questions by the Indonesian people, about how the presidential and vice presidential candidate pairs are handled correctly. Based on the response from Prabowo-Sandi's camp, that he himself gave an example of referring to a village head who supported one of the candidate candidates for candidate number 02, it must be legalized, and put in prison, while there was a Governor who openly supported candidate number 01, but not why. And based on the evidence referenced by the Prabowo candidate, the legal system in Indonesia is not fair. And then it is considered by the incumbent that if indeed this is true, it must be done according to existing legal procedures.
However, the people can judge for themselves what the arguments are right. And if it is judged from another point of view, it can be seen that in answering the questions given by the moderator, there are obvious differences in answering this. So what's the difference that attracts the attention of netizens?
In the first session, it appears that in answering the incumbent's side it seems more referring to the explanation. However, if the Prabowo-Sandi camp is more explaining about what must be done or the solution given is related to the problem that is the subject of the question.
And then between the two camps, it was also seen that the Prabowo-Sandi Party was able to answer in harmony or in harmony so that it explained that both of them had indeed committed to jointly developing Indonesia for the better. However, if seen in the incumbent camp, this seems to be inversely proportional to what Prabowo-Sandi did. And people who watch the debate will also be very concerned about the attitudes given and the answers said by each candidate. And for incumbents when viewed in terms of answering questions, it can be assessed that those who always answer the questions given by the moderator are answered more by the presidential candidates than by the vice president.
And no less interesting is that when the moderator gave questions to the candidates, it was known that the two camps were given each of the texts of the candidates. However, the community can also assess the attitude taken by the candidate pairs. The Prabowo-Sandi camp was judged that although getting text, but in answering each of the ideas and questions raised it was always answered spontaneously, firmly, flexibly, and also conveyed it correctly without seeing at all what was stated in the text given.
However, different attitudes were demonstrated by the incumbent who could also be assessed by the community, that the presidential and vice presidential candidates were more likely to see the text before answering the questions given by the moderator. Not only that, Vice President number 01 only seemed to occasionally answer the questions given. And the explanation given is not able to make a solution to the problems related to the theme carried out in this first debate.
For example, one of the themes that raises the issue of law and human rights in Indonesia. Where often people in Indonesia are confronted with legal issues, including the assertiveness of human rights issues. And the context is how firmness and law enforcement must be put forward? And in what context should it be a concern?
Then regarding this matter, Prabowo-Sandi and the incumbent responded with different arguments. It was said by the Kubu incumbent that legal action with human rights issues could not be equated with its position. However, this assumption was not approved by the Prabowo-Sandi faction, that according to him there were still many cases in Indonesia which were judged that the legal apparatus was biased.
Both of these arguments make the two ideas collide with each other, and the things that are the subject of questions by the Indonesian people, about how the presidential and vice presidential candidate pairs are handled correctly. Based on the response from Prabowo-Sandi's camp, that he himself gave an example of referring to a village head who supported one of the candidate candidates for candidate number 02, it must be legalized, and put in prison, while there was a Governor who openly supported candidate number 01, but not why. And based on the evidence referenced by the Prabowo candidate, the legal system in Indonesia is not fair. And then it is considered by the incumbent that if indeed this is true, it must be done according to existing legal procedures.
However, the people can judge for themselves what the arguments are right. And if it is judged from another point of view, it can be seen that in answering the questions given by the moderator, there are obvious differences in answering this. So what's the difference that attracts the attention of netizens?
In the first session, it appears that in answering the incumbent's side it seems more referring to the explanation. However, if the Prabowo-Sandi camp is more explaining about what must be done or the solution given is related to the problem that is the subject of the question.
And then between the two camps, it was also seen that the Prabowo-Sandi Party was able to answer in harmony or in harmony so that it explained that both of them had indeed committed to jointly developing Indonesia for the better. However, if seen in the incumbent camp, this seems to be inversely proportional to what Prabowo-Sandi did. And people who watch the debate will also be very concerned about the attitudes given and the answers said by each candidate. And for incumbents when viewed in terms of answering questions, it can be assessed that those who always answer the questions given by the moderator are answered more by the presidential candidates than by the vice president.
And no less interesting is that when the moderator gave questions to the candidates, it was known that the two camps were given each of the texts of the candidates. However, the community can also assess the attitude taken by the candidate pairs. The Prabowo-Sandi camp was judged that although getting text, but in answering each of the ideas and questions raised it was always answered spontaneously, firmly, flexibly, and also conveyed it correctly without seeing at all what was stated in the text given.
However, different attitudes were demonstrated by the incumbent who could also be assessed by the community, that the presidential and vice presidential candidates were more likely to see the text before answering the questions given by the moderator. Not only that, Vice President number 01 only seemed to occasionally answer the questions given. And the explanation given is not able to make a solution to the problems related to the theme carried out in this first debate.
Komentar
Posting Komentar