Because I'm not feeling up to do a well structured commentary, today I'm just going to copy the one I delivered to the teacher.
No, wait, I have one comment I'm dying to reveal: NO WAY I'M GOING TO BE THE SPOKE'S PERSON AGAIN! Ok, that's all by now.
The people who were agaisnt the banning enphasizes that it's fair for those parties to exist because we live in a democratic system, which believes in such values like freedom of reunion and political choice.
"For the banning" tried to explain how the existance of these parties was anti-democratic because of the violence involved in it and their values or ideas for their idealistic society.
In common I think they didn't have much, but maybe both agreed that they didn't defend these parties ideas, but their existance, or not. Just by defending its existance doesn't mean people agree with what extremist parties represent, but saying "their existance compromises people's life" without explaining properly and by being contradictory wasn't the best moment for those who were "for the banning".
Apart from this, I would like for everyone to understand that researching is the most important act when we have a debate. Relax?! Go to spas, there are many good ones.
No, wait, I have one comment I'm dying to reveal: NO WAY I'M GOING TO BE THE SPOKE'S PERSON AGAIN! Ok, that's all by now.
I kinda felt like Hobbes... {thanks for not listen
FOR the banning and AGAINST the banning parties
Yesterday our class had a debate about extremist parties, specifically about either banning or not. On one side we had the ones who were for the banning, and on the other side we had against the banning group.The people who were agaisnt the banning enphasizes that it's fair for those parties to exist because we live in a democratic system, which believes in such values like freedom of reunion and political choice.
"For the banning" tried to explain how the existance of these parties was anti-democratic because of the violence involved in it and their values or ideas for their idealistic society.
In common I think they didn't have much, but maybe both agreed that they didn't defend these parties ideas, but their existance, or not. Just by defending its existance doesn't mean people agree with what extremist parties represent, but saying "their existance compromises people's life" without explaining properly and by being contradictory wasn't the best moment for those who were "for the banning".
15 January 2010
Apart from this, I would like for everyone to understand that researching is the most important act when we have a debate. Relax?! Go to spas, there are many good ones.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário