Winning Guide to CBSE Class 10 English Debate Writing – Format, Tips & Sample Topics

SAMPLE 4: Education in India should be skill-based rather than knowledge-based.

For the motion:

Respected Principal, teachers, and dear friends, today I am going to speak for the motion – **Education in India should be skill-based rather than knowledge-based.**

In India, education often prioritizes scoring high marks over genuinely understanding the concepts taught to students. Students learn to process facts and information but are poorly engaged in the active process of learning. Crucially, they seldom learn how to effectively apply what they have learned. **Skill-based learning** actively teaches students problem-solving, critical thinking, and essential interpersonal skills. These vital skills empower students to design a more fulfilling and successful life for themselves.

Different students possess varying IQs and interests. Some may excel with numbers, others with words, while some might be exceptionally talented in arts and sports. Life skills-based education aims at helping students recognize their unique potential and achieve excellence in their specific areas of expertise.

Knowledge-based education often leads to intense competition among students and promotes brain-wrecking rote learning. This not only diminishes a student’s individual identity but also unfortunately drives many to commit suicide under immense pressure. In contrast, skill-based learning inculcates crucial values such as tolerance and patience in students, and teaches them practical skills like sociability, money management, and even business management.

Skill-based education is a powerful combination of knowledge and practical skills, and it should be strongly encouraged because it demonstrably produces better, more well-rounded individuals.

Thank you.

Against the motion:

Respected Principal, teachers, and dear friends, today I am going to speak against the motion – **Education in India should be skill-based rather than knowledge-based.**

Skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking, and developing interpersonal relationships are undoubtedly important. However, it is equally crucial to gain the fundamental knowledge of *how* to think critically, *how* to develop interpersonal relationships, and *how* to effectively solve problems. Therefore, **knowledge-based learning** should absolutely continue in schools, as it forms the essential foundation for students.

Implementing a system of teaching different life skills to a diverse range of students would entail a significant amount of expenditure. This cost would inevitably be recovered from the students by schools. In a country like India, even today, several children lack access to basic amenities, let alone primary education. How would they then be able to afford expensive skill-based education? Knowledge-based education ensures that all children receive at least basic skills at minimum costs, promoting accessibility.

Skill-based education is truly applicable only at a higher level, once students have absorbed all necessary foundational knowledge. Therefore, education in India should primarily remain knowledge-based rather than exclusively skill-based, especially at the foundational levels.

Thank you.

SAMPLE 5: Military service should be made mandatory in India.

For the motion:

Respected Principal, teachers, and dear friends, today I am going to speak for the motion – **Military service should be made mandatory in India.**

The Indian armed forces are currently finding it difficult to attract bright youngsters to serve their country. Youngsters primarily aspire to become doctors and managers, but few genuinely wish to fight for or protect their nation. If military service is made compulsory, the youth of the country will be obliged to offer their services to the nation, ensuring a steady stream of dedicated individuals.

While our brave soldiers sacrifice their lives at the border, many ignorant youngsters unfortunately misuse their rights and freedom. They take their responsibility towards the country for granted and often behave in an uncivilized manner. Making military training compulsory will ensure that the country’s youth are obliged to demonstrate their commitment towards the nation. It will also profoundly help youngsters understand the immense sacrifices and dedication required to protect one’s country against all odds.

Military service intrinsically molds you into a disciplined individual. Discipline, as we know, goes a long way in building a strong character. Military service also profoundly inculcates the values of integrity and excellence at a young age. Making military service compulsory will undoubtedly help the armed forces train more soldiers and officers, ultimately contributing to building a stronger, more secure nation.

Thank you.

Against the motion:

Respected Principal, teachers, and dear friends, today I am going to speak against the motion – **Military service should be made mandatory in India.**

Many citizens are naturally reluctant to join the armed forces because individuals in the forces are expected to serve the country before themselves, a significant personal sacrifice. If military service is made compulsory, youngsters will join the training primarily because they are compelled to, not because they genuinely wish to serve their country. This scenario risks producing soldiers and officers who are merely “sticking around” to enjoy the benefits offered by the government, rather than demonstrating true patriotism.

Training a soldier involves substantial costs and considerable time investment. It also entails sharing highly confidential details about the country’s army, navy, and air force. Therefore, only those with an exceptionally high level of integrity and unwavering commitment towards their country should be permitted to join the armed forces, ensuring national security.

Conscription has shown successful results primarily in countries with smaller populations. In India, a country with an immense population, mandatory military service could very well lead to widespread mismanagement and exacerbate regional discrimination. Therefore, military training should not be made compulsory in India.

Thank you.

SAMPLE 6: Working women make better mothers than women who stay at home.

For the motion:

Respected Principal, teachers, and dear friends, today I am going to speak for the motion – **Working women make better mothers than women who stay at home.**

Gone are the days when the sole financial responsibility for supporting the family rested exclusively on the man’s shoulders. After the Second World War, women were compelled to take up jobs that were previously the prerogative of men. Women who had been content with housekeeping were now forced to fill the void left by their men who perished at war. They gained financial independence and became capable of financially supporting their families. Despite this newfound independence, women were not freed from the traditional responsibilities of managing the household and raising children. However, since then, women have been impressively striking a fine balance between their professional and personal lives.

A **working woman** adeptly juggles many roles and effectively balances her numerous responsibilities. A working woman often makes a better mother as she inherently understands the demands of our constantly evolving world. She prepares her children to deal with the vicissitudes of the world. She inspires them to forge their own identity and instills vital discipline into their lives. Being accustomed to handling workplace stress, she possesses the resilience and adaptability to manage the ever-changing needs of her children as they grow up. She helps them keep pace with the rapidly changing world, equipping them for future challenges. Children often look up to their financially independent mothers and aspire to emulate their success.

Working women are not confined to the four walls of their houses. They actively explore the world outside and consequently gain a better understanding of what is right and wrong. In today’s world of escalating prices and fierce competitiveness, relying on a single working parent often cannot fulfill the diverse needs of a family. A working woman can significantly supplement the family’s income and alleviate the financial burden from her husband’s shoulders. Working mothers, therefore, unequivocally make better mothers than their stay-at-home counterparts, regardless of what the skeptics may claim.

Thank you.

Against the motion:

Respected Principal, teachers, and dear friends, today I am going to speak against the motion – **Working women make better mothers than women who stay at home.**

Working professionals are certainly no strangers to making sacrifices for the sake of their careers. Often, these sacrifices come at the significant cost of their personal relationships. The ever-growing needs of the modern family have unfortunately compelled many women to take up jobs at the expense of actively raising their children. This alarming trend has given rise to a situation where women often soft-pedal the crucial needs of their family to pursue their professional aspirations.

Some mistakenly believe that children only require support during the first few years of their development. However, during their critical formative years, a mother must dedicate a significant amount of her time and resources to nurture her child. Commitment to work would inevitably mean that the mother has to rush back to the office, leaving the child in the care of either grandparents or a baby-sitter. Such a decision often results in the child receiving conflicting messages about the mother’s parenting style. If the child does not receive the consistent attention it requires, it can grow increasingly aloof and disconnected. The vital parent–child relationship is thus unfortunately strained.

Research consistently suggests that children benefit immensely from consistent contact with their mothers. The strongest form of attachment begins when the mother does not regularly leave the child alone for extended periods. A child’s life is filled with countless precious milestones, such as uttering the first word, standing up independently, and taking their first steps. The working mother will unfortunately never get to consistently partake in all these irreplaceable moments. The stay-at-home mother is far more likely to be intimately involved in her child’s daily activities. She is undoubtedly better placed to sense and respond to the specific needs of her child. Child-rearing absolutely has to be dealt with a hands-on approach, which only a stay-at-home mother can truly achieve. Therefore, it is clear that working women do not, in fact, make better mothers.

Thank you.

SAMPLE 7: Sex education should be compulsory in India.

For the motion:

Respected Principal, teachers, and dear friends, today I am going to speak for the motion – **Sex education should be compulsory in India.**

Sex education is not merely limited to the study of reproductive organs. Its primary aim is to teach young children the crucial difference between a good touch and a bad touch. Unfortunately, many families in India mistakenly equate sex education with explicit sexual relations, and believe that children will “eventually come to know about everything related to sex” on their own, often at great risk.

With increasing exposure to television and the Internet, children often inadvertently pick up incorrect information and can easily get into trouble. Therefore, it becomes absolutely imperative that children are accurately informed about their own bodies and are made comfortable with their sexuality when they attain puberty, preventing misinformation and confusion.

The distressing cases of child sex abuse are unfortunately increasing in India. Furthermore, the number of unwanted childbirths has been steadily rising in India over the past few years. The government must urgently include sex education in the school curriculum to effectively counter critical problems such as teenage pregnancy, molestation, child abuse, and rape.

Research has consistently shown that sex education does not promote promiscuity; rather, it primarily spreads crucial awareness and empowers individuals. Therefore, it should be made compulsory in schools across India.

Thank you.

Against the motion:

Respected Principal, teachers, and dear friends, today I am going to speak against the motion – **Sex education should be compulsory in India.**

It is entirely inappropriate to expect school authorities to conduct sensitive sessions on sex education. A child’s family is undeniably the closest to him/her, and therefore, it is the fundamental **parent’s responsibility** to educate children about their bodies and sexuality in a safe and trusting environment.

If children learn about sexuality exclusively in schools, they might unfortunately end up using that information in an inappropriate or wrong way. Introducing sex education in schools could potentially divert the attention of children from their primary academic focus. Instead of using the information to be safe and informed, it might be misused, taking advantage of knowing how one’s body works, leading to unintended negative consequences.

Disturbingly, the cases of child sex abuse could potentially increase if schools indiscriminately impart sex education to children. An offender can also, tragically, be a school student who might cunningly use the information shared by the school to exploit younger, more vulnerable children. This raises serious ethical and safety concerns.

Making sex education compulsory in India could inadvertently increase the number of young sexual offenders, rather than reducing them. Hence, it should not be made compulsory in India.

Thank you.

SAMPLE 8: Children should be allowed to live independently after the age of 18 in India.

For the motion:

Respected Principal, teachers, and dear friends, today I am going to speak for the motion – **Children should be allowed to live independently after the age of 18 in India.**

In India, children rarely truly live alone at any point in their life unless it is for higher studies or an out-of-station job. Even in those cases, parents often expect children to return home and resume living with them. The Indian family system traditionally promotes interdependence and communal living. However, if children are encouraged to move out of their parental homes and begin living on their own, they will undoubtedly become more confident, self-reliant, and responsible adults.

A young man or woman is typically entrusted with significant responsibilities only when they get married and begin living with their spouses. Prior to that, they often have very limited experience in making important decisions, planning finances, or even effectively handling critical situations. This often places them in a very difficult situation later in life and can even cause doubts about their capacity as responsible adults. If they are allowed to exercise their rights and independence from the age of 18, they will become far better at judging good from bad. They will gain invaluable opportunities to experience life firsthand, learning crucial lessons through direct experience.

Living independently fosters accountability for one’s actions and profoundly teaches individuals to make sensible decisions in life, preparing them for the challenges of adulthood.

Thank you.

Against the motion:

Respected Principal, teachers, and dear friends, today I am going to speak against the motion – **Children should be allowed to live independently after the age of 18 in India.**

An 18-year-old will realistically not secure a decent job in India due to their often limited educational qualifications at that age. As a result, they might be forced to take up odd jobs or face immense stress trying to earn money to sustain themselves. Tragically, youngsters might even be lured into criminal activities to earn more money. Allowing them to live alone at such a vulnerable age can unfortunately result in losing them forever to dangerous paths.

When children move out of their parental homes, it becomes virtually impossible for parents to closely monitor their behavior or track their whereabouts. If they fall into bad company or are misled, chances are that parents will remain ignorant of what’s happening until it is far too late to intervene. When children live with their parents, it is significantly easier to know what is happening in their lives, and the chances of them being misled are considerably reduced, ensuring their safety and well-being.

Living alone is very common and largely successful in Western countries because their laws and regulations are far better equipped to handle such circumstances and provide necessary support systems. However, in India, the legal or employment system regrettably has many loopholes and lacks robust social safety nets for young independent individuals. Hence, children should not be allowed to live independently after the age of 18 in India at this time.

Thank you.

SAMPLE 9: All girls or all boys schools provide a better learning environment than co-educational schools.

For the motion:

Respected Principal, teachers, and dear friends, today I am going to speak for the motion – **All girls or all boys schools provide a better learning environment than co-educational schools.**

It is our fundamental duty to ensure that our children feel a profound sense of security and freedom at school. In an all-boys or an all-girls school, a student consistently receives unbiased and focused attention from the teacher. The fact that boys’ schools often have male teachers and girls‘ schools predominantly have female teachers is a distinct advantage, as students frequently feel more comfortable approaching and confiding in them.

In a country like India, same-sex schools offer significant advantages at various levels. Particularly where there is a necessity for sensitive **sex education**, it becomes considerably easier to educate boys and girls separately without causing them embarrassment or discomfort in front of the opposite sex.

Research has consistently reported that students tend to perform better academically in a same-sex school, irrespective of their social background. In addition, such educational institutions are a significant boon for girls, as parents more readily send their girl-children to these schools to gain knowledge and crucial life skills, overcoming societal apprehensions.

Children naturally grow and develop best in surroundings primarily composed of their own kind, fostering a sense of belonging and reducing distractions. Therefore, all-girls or all-boys schools demonstrably provide a better and more focused learning environment than co-educational schools.

Thank you.

Against the motion:

Respected Principal, teachers, and dear friends, today I am going to speak against the motion – **All girls or all boys schools provide a better learning environment than co-educational schools.**

Same-sex schools regrettably may inadvertently promote **gender bias** in a country like India, where gender equality is a critical societal goal. In a co-education system, there is inherently no discrimination between boys and girls. Co-education can serve as a powerful medium to promote equality between the two sexes. These schools emphasize gender-sensitive teaching where boys and girls are actively sensitized towards each other. In a same-sex school, the absence of the opposite sex can make it difficult for students to understand each other, potentially leading to social difficulties later in life.

Co-education is a significant boon in countries facing a shortage of well-trained teachers. The same dedicated staff can teach both boys and girls simultaneously in the same class. Establishing more co-educational institutes can greatly help in spreading literacy even with limited teaching staff and infrastructure. This approach will undeniably contribute to building a better nation.

When students transition from a same-sex school, they may find it challenging to adjust to a co-educational work atmosphere after graduation. On the other hand, students from co-educational schools are generally more comfortable interacting with people of the opposite sex and are not intimidated by their presence, fostering better social and professional integration.

Co-education systems are economical and naturally cultivate a spirit of comradeship between boys and girls. Therefore, co-educational schools are fundamentally better than all-girls or all-boys schools.

Thank you.

SAMPLE 10: Private tuitions are a necessary evil.

For the motion:

Respected Principal, teachers, and dear friends, today I am going to speak for the motion – **Private tuitions are a necessary evil.**

Private tuitions offer specialized academic coaching for students who require additional guidance beyond their regular school routine. Today, besides academics, students are expected to participate in many extracurricular activities. They are often graded for involvement in sports and creative pursuits like drawing, painting, dancing, and singing. Students have a significant workload and frequently find it challenging to give studies undivided attention. Under such circumstances, external help in their studies can be immensely beneficial.

Many schools are understaffed and find it difficult to cater to each student individually. It’s challenging to address the specific academic problems of students on a personal level within a large classroom setting. Therefore, students often need to turn to someone for personalized assistance. Private tuitions typically boast a favorable student–teacher ratio. A private tutor can provide students with dedicated attention, manage them at a micro-level, and monitor their progress more closely.

When it comes to studies, having a private tutor also introduces a variety in learning approaches. Tutors can offer students a fresh perspective compared to the techniques taught in schools. They can nurture a student’s thirst for knowledge away from the noisy environment of classrooms. Private tuitions create an environment where students can freely express their doubts without any inhibitions or fear of ridicule. This makes it particularly beneficial for introverted students who often feel shy in class.

I strongly believe that private tuitions should exist alongside academic institutions such as schools and colleges. They provide a valuable alternative to traditional classroom education and can significantly bolster a child’s confidence in academics.

Thank you.

Against the motion:

Respected Principal, teachers, and dear friends, today I am going to speak against the motion – **Private tuitions are a necessary evil.**

Private tuitions are institutions that offer academic coaching to students in addition to the training provided at their schools. However, I firmly believe that these institutions ultimately destroy the very spirit of self-directed learning, which is innate in every child.

Private tutors often charge an exorbitant amount of money for what is often less than 20 hours a month. I believe this gives an undue advantage to a privileged child compared to their less privileged counterpart. It is unfortunate that someone with financial means is given an edge over others. In a world where opportunities can be rare, the underprivileged student may never get a fair chance to succeed in life because the rich student has exclusive access and means to these perceived advantages.

This practice also undermines a child’s ability to think independently. By being “spoon-fed” by the tutor, the child becomes accustomed to not making any effort on their own. The innate ability to question, ponder, and solve problems independently is unfortunately stifled by the private tutor. The child then becomes unnaturally dependent on the tutor for all their academic needs. This promotes the detrimental idea that nothing needs to be earned in life, only bought. Children internalize the wrong notion that success can be purchased rather than achieved through hard work.

Tutors also sometimes swindle parents by charging exorbitant amounts to tutor students for a limited number of hours. Some parents foolishly trust such individuals and expect them to miraculously improve their children’s grades. Furthermore, the value and authority of school teachers diminish in the eyes of students. Students may cease to respect their teachers and might not pay attention in class, believing that their academic success is solely secure in the hands of their private tutors.

Owing to these significant reasons, I strongly oppose the widespread practice of private tutoring. I urge students to study independently and strive for self-reliance without constantly relying on these so-called ‘tutors’.

Thank you.