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.
I also think that the in favor team in the first debate won, hahhaa. I totally agree with you in that we all need to improve our English whie speaking. I think we were both anxious and nervous before the debate because it was our first time.
ResponderEliminarI agree with you that your debate was a bit strange, but it is something that we as chilean citizens should know and give opinions about it.
ResponderEliminarOn the other hand, if you read our classmates' blogs, their use of English is not bad. However, in the debate we all were under pressure, so it is kind of obvious that our English was going to be a little "champurreado", because of our anxiety and, either we want it or not, the grade.
LOVE YA!
I would like to say you that I agree with you with respect at the attitude that your group took. In my opinion was amazing because you tried to do the best possible knowing that you made a mistake. Maybe for the next time would be useful that the group has a better communication in order not to commit errors
ResponderEliminarI'm glad you enjoyed the debate. It's really useful insofar as it works several different skills at once.
ResponderEliminara correction:
They read too much;* it was notorious ???? that they learn* the information by *heart*.
In the second debate, the "mistake" in what both groups were defending the same idea was a grear opportunity not just to dabate, also to see what can we do if something similar happen in our future classrooms as future teachers.
ResponderEliminarWell done Chio!
Hi Rocio, I'm correcting your work....
ResponderEliminar*About the first debate(P) I think that the group which was in favour of “professionals being teachers” did something good.*
*They not only taught but they were great teacher(C) and they (T)are remembered nowadays because of that.*
*I believe that to support your arguments with theoretical things is great when you are on a debate.*(?M)
*We committed a mistake and because of that we could (SM) debate as we were supposing to debate.*
Those are some mistakes I could find in your blog entry. Check them...
You did a good job!
see you then,
bye!