Ban of Personal Weapons

I think that we should ban personal weapons cause other criminals can use it. If there was no gun policy then everyone won't have any guns (execpt police) and criminals can't use it cause they won't be allowed. Also the commutiy would be safer because the guns would be in safe hands. You can use other weapons instead of guns. And guns make a big diffenece if used on a field. If there weren't any guns then there won't be any gun accidents and if there isn't any gun accidents then USA would be a better place to live.

Week 2

I think that government officials should be allowed to express their personal thoughts and opinions because whether or not someone is a part of the government, they have the right to speak publicibly. Freedom of speech is supported in the first amendment of the United States Constitution. When government officials express their own ideas, people should accept them. When people accept them, it will help others speak more openly of their thoughts themselves. Recently, Stanley MacCrystal lost his job because of his personal feelings against the government. If people outside of the government are allowed to say whatever they want about the government, government officials deserve to have the rights as we do. However, I understand that it can cause a lot of controversy and fights. If people don't get judged because of what they say, there would be a lot less dishonesty. Please comment! Thank you!

Ban of Personal weapons

I think that banning personal weapons will be good idea because there may be less crimes and less deaths in the world because there won't be guns, knives, and other crime specific weapons. People will be more safe from harm of criminals. The only certain people that can have personal weapons are those American serving men and women who have been in the military and have been trusted for many years. They should have their weapons confiscated if they have broken a major law such as murder, burglary, and others. Personal weapons should be banned because there will certainly be major accidents that involve death and injuries that are untreatable.

I think government officials should be allowed to publicly express their personal thoughts, feelings, etc. Even if their ideas are negative or against government ideas, I think that if they express their thoughts it will widen other people's views on that subject. Expressing their ideas openly can help civilians build confidence in their ideas. Seeing someone with such authority speak their thoughts helps civilians to be more open about sharing their own ideas. Also, why should government officials be blamed for expressing their thoughts? To this day, people are still allowed to protest for the Ku Klux Klan in public. It's not against the law for them to protest against African-Americans so why should it be wrong for government officials to express their thoughts? Please comment and thanks for reading!

i think that the government should ban personal weapons because weapons just lead to violent crimes. if people don't have an access to weapons, they can't shoot or hurt anyone they don't like. the government has been trying to ban weapons but protesters have stopped them by saying that the constitution allowed citizens to carry a weapon with them. i think saying that is wrong because when the constitution was written, people didn't own m-16s or Ozzie's, only muskets. so that is why i think the government should ban weapons.

Using opinions in governing

My topic is government officials should be allowed to express their own opinion. First of all, I think government officials should be able to express their own opinions. They should be able to because the best way to get them motivated to work well is to let them do what they feel is right. If they were forced to do something that they would not feel is right, they would have less motivation and thus creating a balance-less and corrupt government. For example, Stanley McChrystal lost his job when he said innappropriate things in an interview. However, if he had been doing a great job as general in afganistan, then he should not be fired because he stated his opinion. That is an example of why government officials should be able to express their own opinion.

Prompt Week 2

Hi Guys!

Great debate Friday, sorry it's taken me so long to get your post up (the Yankees were in town playing the Dodgers this weekend). For this week, I want you to research and explain your opinion in your post about one of the following topics:

1) Government officials should be allowed to express their personal opinions

2) There should be a quota of women serving in the government

3) There should be a ban of personal weapons

All three of these topics are current events from the last 2 weeks, so I expect you all to connect those events to your opinion.

The debate topics for this week will all be about SPORTS!

-THBT athletes should be penalized for not acting as role models

-THBT athletes should have salary caps

-THBT games of the same sport should be played by the same rules in every location

-THBT instant video replay is necessary in all sports

-THBT countries in conflict should settle their disputes via a sporting event

Good luck!

See you all Friday :)

Debate topic

My favorite debate topic is about the neverending feud of boys and girls. It interests me about how there seems to be an infinite amount of reasons why boys are better and why girls are better. It's funny how the debaters actually act like they're in a debate because of their passion of wanting their gender or their side to win. Though I am on the girls' side, I respect the boys' side too. Usually, the reason why girls think they're better is because of their long history of being ignored and taken advantage. They feel that they must work harder to be an equal or higher than the boys. For the boys' side, I have a theory about why they think they are better. Both men and boys are usually known for strenght and knowledge (I am not too fond about the knowledge part). They use the fact that men have more higher and important jobs than the women. In a debate on who is better, boy or girls, the boys, almost always, uses the fact that they are stronger. I stand by that fact because males are built differently than females. They have more muscles than us girls. However, I don't think that is a fair arguement. The human body for both genders are made differently and it is not right to use that advantage against the girls. It is not their fault for being built weaker than the males.

ACI debate2 hw part 2:

I thought this debate was an excellent one. The motion was a very clear downright question. The PM was a bit like a person who couldn't find words to express his ideas because he always said "...as a consequence.." over and over again. My favorite part was the arguement about human dignity against the peoples right to know what was going on in the wars.

Debate video

The debate video about how the media should show the full horror of war was both intresting and confusing. I was frustrated by a point given in the video. The debater said that if people watch the full horror of war, they wouldn't go to war. Though that is a reasonable point, there is however a flaw. The problem is that not all citizens would be afraid. If a person is ready to commit himself/herself to war, then they wouldn't be affected too much by the horror. Yes some people would change their minds but the ones with pride and passion would fight braver than the ones that cower under the sight of dieing a painful death. The point that I thought was really good was the one about human dignity. If a soilder dies, isn't there usually an important funeral for him/her? Doesn't that show respect? This debater said that it wouldn't be respectable to film a movie about how soilders died. We're supposed to respect their death, not enjoy watching him/her being blown up in a blockbuster that may contain false parts of the real story.

WEEK 1 HOMEWORK

The the subject that we debated that was my favorite was if talented students should be seperated from the not so talented students. There were many different kinds of very detailed answers for the motion. There was much discussion and lots of different opinions. The debate that I watched was a long and very argumentative, with both teams coming up with reason and opinions on the motion. I thought this debate deserved itself a 8 out of 10. The most compelling speech was given by the prime minister because he stated the debate topic and gave excellent support on his team's proposal. THe least compelling was the opposition whip because he did a mediocre job on his part. The people in the debate talk really really fast! Although the debate was long, it was very informative.

ACI debate2 hw:

I think that the issue of who controls the nuclear power and weapons is something very debatable. It argues upon whether or not some countries should own nuclear power or weapons as well as why countries with nuclear power and weapons won't allow the other countries to own them too. This arguement also brings the issue about whether the countries that own nuclear power and weapons are responsible in using it as well as if they are not. Countries that want to own nuclear power and weapons have very strong reasons for why they should be allowed to own it. On the other hand, the countries that want to deny some countries from gaing the nuclear power and weapons also have strong reasons too.

Week 1 :)

A topic I am really interested in is the topic we are going to do tomorrow in class. I am excited to hear what each of my classmates think about how Harry Potter influenced English Literature and what should the minimum age for a pop star is. I am excited for these topics because I have been wondering the same thing about what other people might think about them. I haven't heard a lot of other debates before, so I am looking forward for tomorrow! :)

Based on the debate we had to watch this week for homework, I really enjoyed the way each speakers spoke. I noticed that every speaker is different on presenting their own opinions such as some people were very enthusiastic and emotional towards their speaking while others were very casual, but at same time, states the facts really well. One of the reasons stated by the OG side which was also the For side explained that the media should let all people understand about what is going on with our lives and the wars happening around us by showing the whole horrors of war. They shouldn't cover up the truth and only let the audience know about the good things and exclude the bad ones. However, at some points of the debate, I had trouble understanding the speakers for they rush through their speech when they got really into the topic.
I rate this debate 8 out of 10 for its information, but not on indicating clarity at all times. :D Thank you!

Debate2

My favorite debate last Friday was about banning standardize testing every year. The debate explains cleary why banning standarize testing is acceptable or not. There is proof on both sides. I rank this debate 7 out of 10. In my opinion, the strongest part of the debate was given by the Deputy Leader of Government. Everyone else also gave good reasons and strong points. The least compelling argument was given by the Opp. Whip. He did not clearly state the question he was given. The debate was very confusing.

Week 1

My favorite debate is that Talented Students Should Be Taught Seperate From Their Peers. This debate makes me curious...is it true or not. Well its like teaching a group of 7th graders and 6th graders at the same time...what do you think the result is? They can't concentrate! If your smart and your being taught with some one not so smart, you will feel proud and boastful!

I would rate this debate an 8 out of 10...the debate isn't as fast as the one Ms. Krissy showed us. The motion is clear so the PM is thorough with his part. The LO blew the PM out...he was just awesome.

I think that my favorite debate is standardized testing. It was fun to see the class and how they reacted. When they talked about how bad standardized testing was, it was hard for them to state why it was bad because it actually helps us.

I would rate the debate around 5 out of 5. This is because that I haven't seen a lot of debates and it was hard to judge it being good or bad. The debaters talked loud and clearly. They were really straight forward and use want the opponent said to use it against them. It was interesting to watch.

Week # 1

My favorite debate so far is the British Parliament Debate.
It has been the only type of debate I have done. I might have participated in some other types before, but the BP Debate is the easiest form I know of.


I would rank this debate a 8 out of 10. The strongest argument how we, the citizens, should know what is happening during war. The media shouldn't say that everything's okay. Everything in this world is just jacked up. The least compelling argument was when a speaker said that showing horrors are necessary for it to be accountable world decisions in democracy. I don't think that's true.

1: I am particularily intrested in the debate over the segregation of smart and dumb kids. I was interested because it was interestingto see what sorts of arguments could come up with. Arguments like the smart kids would make the less smart people feel dumb and lose confidence. Another argument I like is that the less smart people can recieve more help.

2: If I can rate this debate by 1 to 5 star, I would give it a solid 4 star. I think it is four star because each person very strongly backs up their side of the story. They also talk with feeling and expression; they do not talk in a monotone way. However, they only keep to one topic and they do not branch and explore similar problems.

Ready for Week 2?

Hi guys!

Hopefully most of you have at least seen the debate and are ready to begin blogging. Make sure you create a new post, and publish it before 10pm tomorrow.

For class Friday, here are some things to keep in mind.

1. You will have a quiz of current events.

2. You will have a quiz about the roles in a debate.

3. You will have your first debate!!!

The motion for your first debate will be one of the following....

• THBT Harry Potter has done more harm than good for literature
• THBT that important characters in movies should be portrayed by actors of the same ethnicity
• THW impose a minimum age for pop stars

Good luck!

See you all bright and early on Friday!

Ms. Krissy

Welcome! Week 1 Prompt

Hi guys!

This is going to be your new blog to get us through this semester! Enjoy.

Here is your prompt...

So for this first week, I expect you to do two things in your blog.

1. Explain your favorite debate so far, or a topic that you are particularly interested in. Tell me why, and provide some background information.

2. Watch this DEBATE . Rank the debate. Comment on what the strongest and least compelling arguments were to you.