First of all I want to say that this experience with debates was great. I really believe that I learn a lot, not only in terms of English but also in terms of looking information on the web.
About the first debate, I think that the group which was in favour of “professionals being teachers” did something good. They showed some examples of professionals who were not educators and that taught at schools or universities anyways. They not only taught but they were great teachers and they are remembered nowadays because of that.
The group who was against used a lot of bibliography to support their arguments. They quoted many famous educators and writers who are specialists in “how a good teacher is supposed to be”. I believe that to support your arguments with theory is crucial when you are on a debate. On the other hand I believe that they could have improved the way they present their ideas. They read too much, it was notorious that they learnt the information by hard.
I think that the first group won, because they were able to prove their point not only with theory but with concrete examples.
About the second debate I can say that it was a bit strange. We committed a mistake and because of that we couldn't debate as we were suppose to debate. We were in favour, and I believe that we did pretty well. We were capable of defend our arguments with more valid arguments. At the end I believe that we won because this new bill will help not only adults but also young people who are not participating in politics. In my opinion we (the ones who were in favour of the new voting law) need to improve our English. When we are presenting orally we often make more mistakes than when we are writing an essay.
Finally what I would like to add about my topic is that this new bill will be useful for all of us. The ones who say that are not interested in politics perhaps is because they are not inform about this. This new bill will give everyone the chance to participate when they want to. People will choose whether to vote or not to vote.
About the first debate, I think that the group which was in favour of “professionals being teachers” did something good. They showed some examples of professionals who were not educators and that taught at schools or universities anyways. They not only taught but they were great teachers and they are remembered nowadays because of that.
The group who was against used a lot of bibliography to support their arguments. They quoted many famous educators and writers who are specialists in “how a good teacher is supposed to be”. I believe that to support your arguments with theory is crucial when you are on a debate. On the other hand I believe that they could have improved the way they present their ideas. They read too much, it was notorious that they learnt the information by hard.
I think that the first group won, because they were able to prove their point not only with theory but with concrete examples.
About the second debate I can say that it was a bit strange. We committed a mistake and because of that we couldn't debate as we were suppose to debate. We were in favour, and I believe that we did pretty well. We were capable of defend our arguments with more valid arguments. At the end I believe that we won because this new bill will help not only adults but also young people who are not participating in politics. In my opinion we (the ones who were in favour of the new voting law) need to improve our English. When we are presenting orally we often make more mistakes than when we are writing an essay.
Finally what I would like to add about my topic is that this new bill will be useful for all of us. The ones who say that are not interested in politics perhaps is because they are not inform about this. This new bill will give everyone the chance to participate when they want to. People will choose whether to vote or not to vote.
