Dear Pupils,
Here are the videos I wanted you to watch. I am sorry that the Internet streaming took so long.
I hope you enjoy the videos. Have a happy time learning!
Happy Easter to all who celebrate the Risen Lord!
Mrs Simon
P/S Pssst Lawrence, is this new blogskin better?
How the Spartans fought
http://www.history.com/video.do?name=militaryhistory&bcpid=1681730307&bclid=1683701822&bctid=16461076683701822&bctid=1646107668
The Trojan Horse
http://www.history.com/video.do?name=militaryhistory&bcpid=1681730307&bclid=1683701822&bctid=16185921673701822&bctid=1618592167
Latest!
Our 2 classes got into the Inter-class Debate!!! Everybody (not just the debaters), please do your research this weekend. Each person to contribute some points and we will consolidate them on Monday.
Semi-finals
Pr 5/11 (Prop) vs Pr 5/7 (Opp)
Pr 5/12 (Prop) vs Pr 5/4 (Opp)
Motion - THBT
Watching television programmes does more harm than good.
Finals
Motion -THBT
E-learning is the classroom of the future.
Deliberately Deliberating Copyright © 2009 Cookiez is Designed by Ipietoon for Free Blogger Template
57 comments:
Must we do the research for the Finals too?
Thanks Mrs Simon! For changing the template!
When is the Finals and are we the "Prop" or "Opp"?
Lawrence we are Prop it is written in Mrs.Simon's posting.
Er... I dont quite like the blogskin. It looks like a study group having a picnic. Anyway, thank goodness we are prop, its easy. Lots of stuff to talk about.
Wow guys, you will not believe this, but I have though about thousands of rebutttals for the OPPOSITION. That means that if they manage to think what I think, you guys may be (non literal) dead. I cannot think of many poinst that the Opp cannot bomb!
Whoops, spelling error. I meant 'points' not 'poinst'. Sorry!
I wonder which other classes have got into the semi-finals? Well anyway, there are good points for both Opp and Prop.
For Prop, we can talk about social and economical detriments and so on.
We must also find rebuttals for Opp.
Personally, I feel that we are lucky to be Prop because the television really does more harm than good!
Also we can say that it will be dangerous if you watch too much television and neglect sleep.
Hi Everyone,
Thanks for being so diligent. You are all gems!
Charmaine, there are only 4 classes for the semi-finals. I agree with you that television is bad for you but we should define how much television we watch, right?
Please do prepare points for the finals, if you have time. If not, we should focus on the semi-finals first.
Keep at it!
The motion is good, to our advantage, because they do not only say that TV is ALL harm, they say that TV does MORE harm than good. Can we say that people often eat while watching TV so they can become fat?(there was once a newspaper article on this)
Mrs Simon, you changed the blogskin yet again...Just now it was the pink one, now it is a scrapbook...Err...If we say,"Watching TV is bad for our eyesight" and they POI and say "but we can sit 2m away from the TV", what can we say? I know that very few people do that, but how do we say it?
How do we do the "defining" and what date is this debate? Sorry, i forgot. Mrs Simon I won't lose my script again!
Christel, there is no POI in inter-class debates. Still, I wonder why they set such a rule. Actually, I personally would not say that this motion swings towards any side but I feel the opp has got just a slight advantage as they should have quite a few points. More points means more things to rebut. Ha ha ha!
Mrs Simon, can you please refrain from changing the background. I sometimes think I have entered a different blog. By the way, this background is weird.
I feel that all six teams who have won should have competed in the semi-finals. Three winners go to the finals and battle it out in this format. A-B, A-C, B-C. This would be more fair and I must say the teams who have won but did not enter the semi-finals could be grumbling.
Is there more Speak Up programme for the semi-finals? I think most of our classmates would like to take down some notes.
Do not underestimate 5/4 or 5/7. Remember the story of David and Goliath. The speakers from their classes might be really talented. If they are lousy, how did they make it to the semi-finals?
Why are the rebuttals only two minutes? This is so boring. I love rebuttals, especially if I see the opponent stunned. Now, this inter-class debate only gives two minutes for rebuttals. Christel or the third speaker from 5/11 is going to have quite a problem trying to shorten the speech.
The opposition may throw points such as stress relief and education. If we talk about addiction, they may say that parents can limit time used watching television and go for counseling. If we rebut that point with Lawrence's 'prevention is better than cure' point (some of you might not understand this) they can say that we could be depriving children of entertainment. If we say that children learn bad things from television, they can say that parents can put up parental locks to censor ceratin movies and shows. If we say that not all televisions support this feature and to get one that does is expensive, they can say that is is for the good of the child and to protect the child. Then this will loop backc to the 'prevention is better than cure' point. See where this goes? In my opinion, the scale tips slightly into the favour of the opposition. This is going to be a tough match. Do not forget, the points listed are only those I can think of, so the opposition may also think of other points not anticipated by me. Debaters, you guys better watch out for them! Trying to think of counter-rebuttals for these points, by the way, everybody out there better too. ( I hope nobody from 5/4 or 5/7 knows about this blog, because if he reads this comment, we will be giving them points!)
Do not forget if we say that people can spoil their eyes by watching so much television, they can say that people can exercise good eye care habits. If we say that not everybody does that, well, they can say parents can make sure the children take eye breaks and monitor them when they do so until it becomes a habit.
Oh wait, I just realised that most of the points I have raised are all about children, so we should try to think of points that imply to adults, not children, this way their rebuttals will have less effect on our points. So we must remember to put the motion in the context that involves people of all ages. I cannot believe I had not thought of this before.
Why is the template so weird? It's too colourful for my taste. Anyway I'm glad that we'er doing Prop. It's soooooo easy, and thaere's soo much to talk about
Alex, why is your name 'the leung'?
I am sorry, Joshua, is it illegal?
When people are too engrossed in TV, they might get too close to the TV and spoil their eyesight. They might also forget their mealtimes, work times and sleep times.
Not many parents actually DO restrict their children from watching television(if you do a survey you'd probably find that out). Even though that is possible, one way for them to control their children, not many parents actually do do that.
Is there any minimum or maximum number of points we have to contribute?
Everyone, it is to be noted that the motion does not state 'children'. It applies to everyone.
I feel that bringing in statistics would be the best option in this debate. The more statistics, the more the debate swings towards your side. Debaters, do not just cite one example. You will get penalised by the adjudicator or blasted by the opponent, if they know how to rebut when this happens. Try to bomb their statistics with your statistics.
It is quite likely that the opposition will mention about children. Debaters, do say that their context is too narrow. Do not make that mistake. It is an "unforced" error. Mention people of all ages instead.
Proposition, your job is to protect your points, not to bomb their points. Try to plaster the holes quickly or there will be no water left (you might not know what this means). It is the oppostion's job to bomb your points. Just defend your points as much as possible. Make your points as "unrebuttable" as possible. Do not give the oppostion a chance to poke holes in the arguments.
I definitely do notice that many of the points stated are very narrow, they apply only to children. Still, defining the context is the most important thing to do. Try not to set the context as children. It is risky and the opposition might say that the context is too narrow.
I just noticed that this debate is a very difficult one. It is hard to think of points that applies to people of all ages.
Documentaries: Elderly or parents do not find it interesting.
News: Children or the eldrly are not very interested in current affairs.
Eyesight: Adults, elderly eyesight or myopia stops increasing already. Children taught to take care of eyes.
Shows for adults: You just shot yourself in the foot. You say these shows are for adults. Adults are also part of the society.
Neglect sleep, skip meals: Adult and elderly are mature enough to know that the two things stated are dangerous and is detrimental to health.
Not much things to talk about. Must think very, very, very hard for good points that are indestructable.
Ryan, I d onot think we should use too many statistics in our debate, because it kind of all comes down on how you define the motion. Besides, we may get statistics that are inaccurate and we also need the sample size to be large enough. Moreover, over the course of a year many changes can happen and thus the statistics will not be of much use. There is a pressing problem to. If everything is uninteresting to the people that are supposed to be watching television, they will stop watching altogether. This way it will do neither harm or good. But I guess in this point we can bring up some points about the economy. The stations are still running, but nobody is watching, so money is being wasted to the television company's disadvantage. Still think it is a tough debate.
I guess one point that will be to our advantage is learning bad things from television. This is a counter-rebuttal to one of my previous (check 21st comment) points. I pointed out the fact that parents can put parental locks on certain television programmes, but what I realise is that some cartoons, which seem very innocent and is presumed not to have any inappropriate content inside of it may actually be the complete opposite. For example, take the road runner show for example. You know the cooyote always trying to catch road runner? After, let's say, a toddler watches the movie and one day goes into the kitchen. He sees a box of matches lying on the table besides the gas tank. The he remembers the episode of road runner he just watched, where the coyote lit a fuel tank and tried to blow up road runner but ended up blowing up himself. The toddler thinks the effects of that were funny and as the toddler does not know any better, decides to light the fuel tank with the matches. Thus, he ends up killing himself, his family and the neighbours downstairs. So, taking this example, you can see people learn things from what they see, especially how television exaggerates things. People in Hollywood can basically jjump out of cars moving at high speed and survive. imagine the next guy who trys to pull of this stunt. Debaters, you guys can pick up this point. Still thinking of more counter-rebuttals, by the way.
Guys, do not forget the reply draft for the speakers. We (5/11) did that and almost lost the debate.
Mrs Simon, on what date exactly is the debate?
Erm. Alex, Mrs Simon said to me that it was on Tuesday, and on Monday we will discuss. If i remember correctly.
I totally agree with all of you. We must define the motion as 'everyone, young and old' as most people own a television.There is a lot of things to define here, in this motion. That is why being the Prop is so hard. We must define what programmes the people watch, who are the people, etc.
Also,remember not to cite personal examples like, "My parents are not rich enough to install filters" or something like that. It is embarrassing if they bomb you on what you say.
yes Alex, 'THE LEUNG' is an illegal name by my rules!!
Mrs Simon, are we suppose to write down our points? Anyway, we are so lucky we got prop,it is so easy, I can think of alot to say.
Wow! Mrs Simon, the skin changes everytime I enter the blog. Even though it may be easy, we better be careful about what we mention. We might be "bombed". I hope that we will make it to the finals. I am so excited to watch the debate!!!
I have a feeling that this will be a very exciting debate...there are many strong points and rebuttals for both sides, the Opp and the Prop. Well, we must think of many, many rebuttals as there are many different points that the Opp can bring up.
Debaters, just as Ryan has said, you are to defend as much as possible, but at the same time must poke many holes of the Opp. And you must also rebut their rebuttals.
(Next time, we must remind Mrs Simon to bring Post It for rebuttals and reply speech.)
They might talk about advertisements and how the government will be able to convey messages such as saving the enviroment to the people in a fast and (most probably) effective way.
Hello Mrs Simon and all!
Samantha Lau your Sec2 senior here.
Just wishing all of you all the best for the debate!
Good luck! =D
Lawrence, please remember to tell the debaters to define the motion clearly and watch out for easily bombed points! So sorry could not help out today...
For the point on education, I guess we could talk about accuracy and whatnots. 51st comment!
we can say that most people seat in front of the tv while eating and this may cause indigestion.
Indigestion? Good point. I had my appendix removed because of that
(but I also ran after I ate so it should be a mix of the two)
Children can get addicted to television and neglect sleep. Also, there will be much less interaction with the family and might even cause disrectspect.
Debate is tommorow guys! Best of luck to all the debaters. Hope you people had sufficient practise.
yeah we got in!!!!!!
LACK OF SLEEP T_T please P5/11 send all info and points about prop AND op for finals, motion: e-learning is the classroom of the future. Us debaters cannot cope, i still have a 4 page story to be completed by TOMORROW.
Post a Comment