Last Friday in the philosophy class, we were asked to prepare a debate with the motion: The future of our school´s student´s association’s (SA) presidency, while the votes were coming in.
The main point of the debate was to clarify whether A party, the party supported by the majority of the class, was the best option to be in charge of the SA or not.
We were told by the teacher that everything was allowed, from telling the truth to using false arguments. In addiction, we were also told that the class should be divided in two groups, the proposers and the opposers, meaning that the whole class would be discussing at the same time. The idea of a no rules debate got everyone feeling excited. However that excitement turned a calm argument into a heated discussion where everyone wanted to participate at any cost.
Even when it rang, both parts wanted to continue discussing, because a consensus couldn’t be reached about the winner and neither of them wanted to throw in the towel.
Everyone agreed that it is an activity that should continue sometime in the future however, some ground rules have to be set in order to prevent these rapid shifts of well-structured speeches to a no holds barred chaotic fest.
Written by Diogo Moutinho and Sofia Brandão
Comments