Debating Internet Censorship

It has been said that it is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it. And with this in mind, the Debate Club organized its third debate this year. The proposition team argued “ that there should be government censorship on the Internet.” On the Affirmative team, there were Hala Kreidieh  12 Life Sciences and Zeina Shateela  11 Sciences. On the opposition team, there were Farah Shaer 12 Life Sciences and Reem Alwan 11 Sciences.

 

During the debate, arguments and counter arguments were put forward. It was obvious that both teams, the debaters as well as the team members, had researched their topic deeply and thoroughly and were able to confront each other with some interesting and baffling questions. 

 

Mr. Muhammad Mushnouk (Director of Educational Affairs) honored us with his presence and inspired the students with his enlightening remarks.

 

  

Fear not those who argue but those who dodge. Dale Carnegie

The Debate Club organized its second debate this year. It was Grade Ten’s turn to take to the stage. Upon finishing unit three - Gender and Relationships- the students opted to debate a controversial issue in today’s society: “Should divorce be made easier to obtain, or are there moral reasons to discourage it?” To build their arguments, the debaters did not only resort to their research findings but also used real-life examples and experiences of people in their community. They grabbed the attention of the audience who participated eagerly and asked both teams challenging questions that led to a more in-depth discussion of the issue.

Debate Heat

As has been customary at the end of the first term, students of grade twelve (life Sciences) and students of grade eleven (Sciences) took to the stage to debate a controversial issue pertaining to the topics covered by their curriculum. The affirmative team proposition was: “Resolved that the selling of human organs should be legalized.” 

The students took their time to research both sides of the issue before they chose their positions. They then formed two teams and were given additional time to do further research, compare ideas, share notes and construct their arguments and counterarguments.

Each team was represented by three students who gave arguments complete with opening statements, rebuttals, and closing remarks. The remaining students on each team were a significant part of the cross examinations. They had come to class with two prepared questions aiming at refuting the argument of the opposing team, probing for weaknesses in its reasoning.

The impassioned debaters and audience were very excited as the debate got heated. Their energy showed that even tough topics like the one they were debating could be transformed into something stimulating and accessible to the students.