Intelligence Squared Debate: Against Enhanced Interrogation
In this project, we started with learning some background knowledge about the Middle East, the difference between Islam and Islamism, Orientalism, and we had socratic seminars about these issues. Once we had this knowledge, we started preparing for our debates about whether we should use enhanced interrogation on suspected terrorists, if we should allow 50,000 Syrian refugees into the US, if we should continue to use drones, and if we should use surveillance in order to protect our country from terrorist attacks. My debate was about if we should use enhanced interrogation on suspected terrorists, and I was against that. The process leading up to this debate was writing a process paper, and creating cut cards and notecards for the debate. There was a lot of practice and research involved in order to win the debate by swaying the audience the most.
I will come away from this project with a further knowledge of the culture of people in the Middle East, what terrorism actually is, and how the US responds to different kinds of terrorist attacks. I definitely feel like I have a better understanding of what the religion of Islam is, and I feel like a lot of the reason so many people in the US have racism towards Muslim people is because they do not know anything about the religion. I also learned that terrorism can come in many forms, and there are also very different ways the US responds to this. It seems like the government and news outlets are more likely to call an act of terror “terrorism” if the person who committed the crime was Middle Eastern, and they were less likely to call it terrorism if the person was from the US and white. After learning this, I have a better understanding of different kinds of people, and how we should not allow the stereotypes we have learned to shape our beliefs of people.
I developed a lot of argumentative skills over the course of this project, the most important ones were how to use evidence, and how to effectively state my arguments. I learned how to use evidence by researching specific questions in order to find the exact piece of evidence I am looking for. I learned how to effectively state my arguments by talking about what I am arguing, using really good evidence, and then analyzing that evidence. I have grown as a persuasive speaker by being able to articulate my thoughts, and use accurate information in order to prove my argument.
I will come away from this project with a further knowledge of the culture of people in the Middle East, what terrorism actually is, and how the US responds to different kinds of terrorist attacks. I definitely feel like I have a better understanding of what the religion of Islam is, and I feel like a lot of the reason so many people in the US have racism towards Muslim people is because they do not know anything about the religion. I also learned that terrorism can come in many forms, and there are also very different ways the US responds to this. It seems like the government and news outlets are more likely to call an act of terror “terrorism” if the person who committed the crime was Middle Eastern, and they were less likely to call it terrorism if the person was from the US and white. After learning this, I have a better understanding of different kinds of people, and how we should not allow the stereotypes we have learned to shape our beliefs of people.
I developed a lot of argumentative skills over the course of this project, the most important ones were how to use evidence, and how to effectively state my arguments. I learned how to use evidence by researching specific questions in order to find the exact piece of evidence I am looking for. I learned how to effectively state my arguments by talking about what I am arguing, using really good evidence, and then analyzing that evidence. I have grown as a persuasive speaker by being able to articulate my thoughts, and use accurate information in order to prove my argument.