Addie (war activist?) v. Kyle (sitting duck?)
The heated debate kicked off on Thursday, May 13, 2010 with the topic of education. Tension was high as they started with a bang. The conflict was over who should get more funding, high achieving schools or low achieving schools. Kyle asked, "Why do schools that are already succeeding need more funding?" Addie had a valid and thought provoking idea, "Funding should go to the schools that have effective programs, so they can expand on those." As the educational portion of the debate wore on, it seemed as though there would not be a winner between these two worthy opponents.
The next three topics, right to privacy, the environment and immigration, were met with mostly civil agreements. Both felt the right to privacy should be upheld unless it created a threat to the country. The environment was important to both parties, but not as important as the economy. Both parties also agreed on their opposition to the Arizona immigration law.
The end of the debate was where the words started flying, and at times it seemed as though the fists might as well. The question was foreign affairs, the decision to be involved or remain neutral. As Addie hurled questions at Kyle's position, it became evident that there were many flaws and numerous weaknesses. Addie accused the LAP of letting terrorism run rampant and taking a "as long as it doesn't affect us, it's ok" mentality. As the debate came to a close, the tension had peaked and Addie's attacks became a constant. When it was all said and done, it was clear to all that Addie had won the debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment