I have spent the last two mornings with a group of 40+ students, volunteers, and teachers for the English Opens Doors Regional Debate. Watching the debates was, to say the least, an experience. I have so much respect for these students, who are investing their free time in the debates and improving their English.
My first thoughts are, it takes serious guts to stand in front of a huge audience and speak. Then add the fact that you're speaking in a foreign language to convince a panel of judges that your team should win. Even though, at times it was definitely more memorization and reading than understanding. That doesn't make what these students are working for any less important. With these things in mind, I commend those students throughout Chile who are participating in the debates.
The topic for this round of the debate was "Rap Music is a Bad Influence on Young People". An interesting and thought-provoking question. Many of the arguments were the same, for example, rap music leads teens to: violence, drugs, and sexual misconduct; or rap isn't bad because it breeds artistic expression and social awareness.
However, there were also some creative arguments. For instance, one student said, "Sure, rap may talk about violence, but there is very big distinction between talking about violence and being violent." Another argued that maybe the reason people believe that rap is a bad influence is the slant presented by the media. Then there were a few really uncomfortable silences where students lost their train of thought, spoke out of turn, or spoke so fast that by the end all you could say was huh?
As a member of the 4 person jury it was kind of hard to actually enjoy the debate. You never realize how hard something is, until you're the one doing it. One important criteria students were to consider and prepare for was rebuttals. This was a very common weakness. While some actually did attempt counter-arguments. More often they said something that was pretty good, but when you contextualize it as a response to the last speaker it was completely irrelevant.
At the end of two days of deliberating and scrutinizing what each team brought, I don't mind saying that there are some things I'm glad I don't for a living. I'm reminded of days in college studying political theory and constitutional law. In particular, John Rawls' concept of the veil of ignorance.
If you're thinking what's the veil of ignorance, don't worry you're probably more familiar with this principle than you think. Have you ever shared a slice of pizza/cake with a friend or sibling? How did you cut it? Close to 50/50. Why? Because afterwards you allowed the other person to choose, right? You cut that cake evenly because you had no control over which piece would be yours.
So why am I thinking about this? It's definitely important to be critical, judgment can be good, and varying world views are certainly valuable. But judgment and justice are not exactly the same. Reading the news and controversy over gay rights, wars, and the many other problems around the world. There are more than enough people passing judgment and willing to speak their mind. However, very people of these people are seeking justice. I'm not saying that the veil of ignorance is perfect, but I am saying we have got to do better than just bickering over who's right or wrong. Maybe instead of asking how do you feel about this, let's ask what are we going to do about "insert pertinent issue here"?
I have heard it said that traveling isn't about where you go, but acquiring news eyes to see the things around you. So put on your veil and see with new eyes the injustice all around, then do something about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment