Reflection
This project was centered around issues in the Middle East and how the U.S. should deal with the threat of terrorism. We as a class started this project by learning about the religion of Islam and the culture surrounding it. We learned all about the history of the religion, some of the practices and fundamental pillars of Islam, and most importantly some of the misconceptions of the religion and its followers held by people in the Western world. We read an article called ‘The Clash of Civilizations’ that was about how conflicts are moving away from battles of powers and moving more towards battles of culture and we had a seminar talking about it. We then moved more towards specifics about the troubles in Middle East. We started by learning about some of the events that have led up to the current situation in the Middle East such as the Iraq war, Arab Spring, Syrian Civil War, etc. We then dug into four main topics that we would eventually debate. These topics were drone strikes, surveillance, Syrian refugees, and the use of enhanced interrogation (torture). We chose one of the four topics and eventually wrote a position paper on it. We gathered tons of evidence into cut cards for our paper but also for the debate we would eventually have. The debate was in the IQ2 format where we had 2 sides, each arguing either for or against the motion. The final product was a debate that we did during school, and also 2 debates that were put on at all-school exhibition.
I think I am going to take away a lot from this project, both in terms of actual content, but also my personal stances on a lot of these issues. My paper and my debate were both against the use of drone strikes in the Middle East, and so I definitely solidified my stance and opinion on that topic. Through some of the data and arguments from the other topics, as well as some pre-existing positions, I also feel that I solidified my stance on those as well. For the Syrian refugees, I was totally for letting them in before we even did this project and if anything the project only strengthened that. For the use of enhanced interrogation, I was against it before and just like the refugees I think that position was only strengthened by this project. Finally there was surveillance, before this project I was totally against it, but after hearing some of the arguments and looking at some of data, I would say at this point in time I am for the use of surveillance without a warrant, but only on metadata rather than actual content. I think that this project overall helped me to learn about some of these issues and really figure out where I stand.
A huge part of this project was the actual debate that we did. I especially had to step up with my speaking and preparation. Everyone was required to do either a constructive or a rebuttal argument, but I had to do both due to our group being short one member. A lot of the arguments and evidence that we used in our debates were from the position papers that we wrote. The majority of the work was putting that evidence and the arguments I made in my paper into spoken form and practicing that. In the end I felt that my constructive argument was a lot stronger than my rebuttal because it was more practiced and less on the spot unlike my rebuttal, however I did feel my rebuttal acted as a strong closer to the debate. I think overall through both the arguments I made in the classroom debate and the moderation I did in the all school exhibition I really improved as a speaker, both as a persuasive one and as an unbiased one.
I think I am going to take away a lot from this project, both in terms of actual content, but also my personal stances on a lot of these issues. My paper and my debate were both against the use of drone strikes in the Middle East, and so I definitely solidified my stance and opinion on that topic. Through some of the data and arguments from the other topics, as well as some pre-existing positions, I also feel that I solidified my stance on those as well. For the Syrian refugees, I was totally for letting them in before we even did this project and if anything the project only strengthened that. For the use of enhanced interrogation, I was against it before and just like the refugees I think that position was only strengthened by this project. Finally there was surveillance, before this project I was totally against it, but after hearing some of the arguments and looking at some of data, I would say at this point in time I am for the use of surveillance without a warrant, but only on metadata rather than actual content. I think that this project overall helped me to learn about some of these issues and really figure out where I stand.
A huge part of this project was the actual debate that we did. I especially had to step up with my speaking and preparation. Everyone was required to do either a constructive or a rebuttal argument, but I had to do both due to our group being short one member. A lot of the arguments and evidence that we used in our debates were from the position papers that we wrote. The majority of the work was putting that evidence and the arguments I made in my paper into spoken form and practicing that. In the end I felt that my constructive argument was a lot stronger than my rebuttal because it was more practiced and less on the spot unlike my rebuttal, however I did feel my rebuttal acted as a strong closer to the debate. I think overall through both the arguments I made in the classroom debate and the moderation I did in the all school exhibition I really improved as a speaker, both as a persuasive one and as an unbiased one.