reflection week three

This week, we began by debating the principles proposed by Machiavelli in The Prince. By splitting into groups who 'agreed' and 'didn't agree' with Machiavelli's perspectives then arguing for the opposite side, we had to consider an alternate point of view. I think that this is a necessary practice for those who wish to improve their debating skills. However, due to the distance between the opposing sides, it was hard to hear the other side's point and thus difficult to construct a proper rebuttal. While many good points were raised, we did not fully explore them (though time was certainly a reason for this) because each team was, in my opinion, not really arguing with each other. Instead, they would hear certain words and assume that the other side was talking about one thing and thus argue against that rather than what was actually being said. The structure of point/rebuttal, new point/rebuttal was a good one for our first debate as it constrained us and prevented violent outbrakes from intense arguing that often occurs when rebuttals are allowed to continue back and forth. Yet, in the future, I'd like to see a more passionate debate in which we can really explore one point/topic through back and forth rebuttals.
Wednesday's breakfast & a movie should, I think, become a more regular occurance. (Though I can't wait for our excursions to begin!) I'd never seen Blood Diamond before and I really enjoyed it. As it's a movie about recent political events, Blood Diamond prompted discussions regarding illegal trading, civil wars, and child soldiers. This was especially beneficial as we went to the 'club fair' after the movie and were inspired to join many human rights clubs and really get involved.