European Year for Innovation and Creativity

Debates 09/12/09

Activities

Communities

DSCF16651

Here we are starting a new serie of articles about the debates that are taking place in the School of Covasint. We will show you the first six (divided in the ones of 9 and 16 of december). We will go on them in 2010.

FIRST DEBATE

What is it better, living in a village or in a city?

Date: 9 december 2009

Time: 1 hour (8-9)

Place: School, English class, Group VII (between 11-13 years)

Number of children: +/- 20Language: English and RomanianMaterials obtained: Report and pictures.

Description: It has been proposed to the children three topics: 1) Relationship with parents, 2) Staying at your country or immigrating abroad and 3) Living in a village or in a city. They have chosen debating about the third topic. Children must be divided in two groups, depending on their ideas about the topic. At first, everybody wanted to defend the “living in a village position”, so we had to separate them. With two groups made, they have chosen a leader to defend the arguments pro village or pro city. Then, they have discussed themselves for 20 minutes. After the intern debate, the leader of the pro city has read their main points to defense their position. After that, the leader pro village has exposed their arguments. Finally, they have debated, according the sentences that has been exposed.

Main arguments used:

Pro village:- It's better at the countryside, because pollution is smaller. - In the country it's better because are more plants and animals.- The landscape it's more beautiful in the country. - We are more safe that in the city. - Life in the country is cheaper that in the city. - We have a lot of places where playing games. - In the village there is more silence. - In the village the vegetables are more naturals. - In the city the life is more expensive that in the village.

Pro city: - You can have a good job.- In free time you have a lot of activities.- You have more facilities in transport.- You can buy all that you need.- You have access to studies.- You are more informed.

Conclusion: At the final of debates the both groups decided that in countryside life is better that in a city. The main reasons: it’s safe and it’s good for our healthiness.

SECOND DEBATE

Is the life easier for you than it was for your parents?

Date: 9 december 2009

Time: 1 hour (12-13)

Place: School, English class, Group VIII (between 11-15 years, last year)

Number of children: +/- 20

Language: English and Romanian

Materials obtained: Report and video.

Description: It has been proposed to the children two topics: 1) Relationship with parents and 2) Staying at your country or immigrating abroad. They have chosen debating about the second one. Children must be divided in two groups, depending on their ideas about the topic. They separated themselves. With two groups made, they have chosen a leader to defend the arguments that say “life is better now" and the opposite. Then, they have discussed for 20 minutes. After the intern debate, the leaders explained their position. Finally, they have debated, according the sentences that has been exposed.

Main arguments used:

Pro easier nowadays:- We have freedom in choosing the religions.- We are equal in rights.-  We have the liberty of expressions.- We have the right to choose the University that we want and we are not influenced by parents.- The children don’t suffer violence in schools from teachers.- The humanity is more developed.- We can have the milk and biscuits in the school for free.- We can express ourselves easier.- The parents aren’t so severe. - We have complete freedom.- We have right to be protected by authorities.- We can go abroad (emigrate) easier.

Pro easier nowadays for the parents: - Our parents had more money.- Was not so many temptations like cigarettes, alcohol, drugs.- The parents didn’t watch all kind of movies.- They had more time for studying and reading.- There were not so many places where young people can be compromised.- Each one had a stable work.- In the past people respect more each other than nowadays.- Parents were more important and respected by their children.

Conclusion:It was difficult to establish a general conclusion because children were contradicting each other. In the final they decided than the life of parents had a lot of negative and positive things, as well in the present. It’s depending on each one and a lot of things, like the education in family.

THIRD DEBATE

Immigrating or staying in your country?

Date: 9 december 2009

Time: 1 hour (13-14)

Place: School, English class, Group VI (between 10-12 years)

Number of children: +/- 20Language: English and Romanian

Materials obtained: Report and pictures.

Description: It has been proposed to the children the topic: Staying at your country or immigrating abroad. Children were divided in two groups, depending on their ideas about the topic. They separated themselves. With two groups made, they have chosen a leader to defend the arguments pro and contra. Then, they have discussed for 20 minutes. After the intern debate, the leaders explained their position. Finally, they have debated, according the sentences that has been exposed.

Main arguments used: Pro immigration: - You are paid better than in Romania. - You can know another culture and show yours. - You have the opportunity to know foreign languages. - You make other friends. - You know new countries and museums. - We have special experiences.- We discover new meals. - We discover modern world.

Pro staying in your country: - Our country is beautiful.- Romania offers us a lot of benefits and we must profit of it.- We love our country and we don’t want to be separated from our relatives.- If you love your country you must stay here.- We can find here also a lot of opportunities and that’s why we do not go abroad.- It’s better in Romania, because here you speak the same language, you don’t need to learn another language. - If the life is not so good in Romania, we must find solutions to leave here.

Conclusion: After a heated discussion the both groups reached a consensus that even if you go abroad you should return.