A good understanding!
Yesterday, two teams each consisting of 4 people have defended their views on sponsorship campaigns in high schools.
3:45 p.m., in thecourtroom at the Palace of Congress in Washington; twenty people were present. They defended their opinions on the companies that sponsored the schools (for example,MacDonald’s, Bic, Nike, and more ...)
Two teams of 5 people. Debate and others listened the debate. The issue is whether to sponsor schools provides benefits ordisadvantages the contrary.
One team is for companies that sponsors high schools and one is against. The first to speak were the people who were for, they said it willlower taxes; this allows to get a better high-tech equipment. Thanks to that, Students will have Better working conditions, and it will help students feel better.
Thesecond team had responded that the ads were causing brainwashing. So that was the role of government to lower taxes; it was useless and immoral. They had no need ofhigh-tech to learn. They added that can create a distance between teachers and students and people are ashamed.
We interviewed two witnesses present at the debateabout their views; the first think that the team for had the better reasoned opinions, but the team against had good contradictions. The second we said that the teamagainst was the best because they had more defend about the students school lives. After, we interviewed a third people: he thinks no one wins the debate, he think thefirst team had good arguments but the second team had good answers.
At the end, nobody really had the last word but all teams had good arguments.
Lire le document complet
Veuillez vous inscrire pour avoir accès au document.