What kind of creative ways can I find to make my opinion public? I
thought of a video or maybe just a drawing, something that would be a diagram
of the main ideas that were raised in this
debate, putting them into groups, linking each argument to its rebuttals… But I
was asked for something academic and use words. So here you are. [Continued
below the fold…]
By MFL
Before congratulating one side, I’d like to thank both of them. I appreciated the
numerous examples you quoted and gave and the use of the comments to point out
the weaknesses of your opponent’s speeches.
It’s a pity that the proposition team forgot to define the motion. Actually,
it would have been the best
way for them to capture what creativity is. Then, the opposition couldn’t have
described it as they wished which; according to their speeches was both “the qualitative
impetus […] behind any given act of creation” and “the process
of producing something that is both original and worthwhile”. Therefore the
debate was not focusing only on the ability to make something new come out of
your mind but also on the
ways and methods to go from an idea to reality.
The proposing side considers
creativity as a gift of nature to every human. The opposition disagreed with
this in their first speech. Probably convinced by their opponent’s speech, they
defended that it was actually a “feature”, and even a “primitive” one. This was not the only paradoxical position in this debate. The proposition seemed
to center the debate on the French system before reminding us that they were
actually talking about “all modern countries”, which is a bit larger than
France, sorry for the French.
Nevertheless, these points were not the center of the debate which was of
course made of arguments. The proposition highlighted that our system is
centered on sciences and stigmatizes mistakes. By not offering various enough
fields, it fails to breed
creativity. If you read between the lines, this argument requires that
creativity bear from a rich background in terms of quantity. This is very
interesting with regard to the opposition’s idea concerning a field of excellence.
There is a contradiction between having to be an expert in your field to be
creative or having some knowledge in a large amount of fields. The proposition
considers that the fear of failure and the social pressure don’t push students
to be creative. The opposition answered this question. Concerning mistakes, I
think that a difference should
have been made between learning time and working time: it was a bit too strong
to give the example of factories of Bangladesh (and the problem here is
probably security and safety more than creativity)
One part of the debate concerned the French education system. All
debaters agreed on the fact that more than content, it is the way in which education
is delivered that matters. For the proposition, it is a force-feeding system,
in which students are supposed to absorb knowledge rather than think by
themselves. This industrial system even
prevents them from having personal opinions! It’s a sensible position but it’s
unfortunate that they don’t really show the way it abolishes creativity. Thanks
to this lack of accuracy, the opposition had the opportunity to answer this
argument. They argued that the aim of schools is to teach rigor and methods in order to learn
to construct thoughts and thereby creativity and its results. The road may be
long but it’s worth it! Schools and education are made to give students tools. Challenging
their minds frees their
creativity.
In a quick view, as I was reading this debate I really felt like one
side was stronger than the other, feeding the debate with new perspectives during
the rebuttal. Then I analyzed it. Who won this debate? The polls vow for the opposition, do I
follow them? Read the underlined bold letters to find the answer! This is my creative
touch.
Thank you all, proposition, opposition and guest speaker, some of your arguments were very… creative.
MFL
No comments:
Post a Comment