This lesson, I participated in a debate in another class on the topic of "Does appearance really

matter?" and I was for it. The organization of this debate was very different from what I was used to.
In my team, we were all prepared, each with our own arguments and roles, knowing the topic well,
but the other team was much less prepared. They only had a few ideas of arguments prepared by
someone, but nothing really prepared or anything. In our class, the rules for debates are strict, but
they guarantee everyone's right to speak and explain what they have to say. Each person speaks and
answers a question or more and then it is the other team's turn to present their idea and respond to
the comments. Here, there was much less organization, almost everyone spoke at the same time,
often the same people, there was not much listening and being able to present and explain one's
point of view without being unintentionally interrupted was not easy. The other team kept repeating
the same arguments even when we proved them wrong and perhaps not making enough progress.
To conclude, I think we won this debate because we were better prepared but also because our side
was easier to defend. But I didn't really like the way the debate was organized, and I prefer stricter
rules, even if they are sometimes a bit restrictive.

This lesson I didn't debate, I just listened to others on the topic: does appearance really matter?
Overall, I think this debate was interesting, there were some great statements and good preparation
from everyone. I think the structure of the debate was excellent with the introduction at the
beginning to present the topic, the main arguments and the debaters. And at the end, the
conclusion, especially Emilie's. I saw that she took note of what everyone was saying and pointed out
their mistakes or maybe intriguing statements. Then she would respond to criticism, answer
questions correctly or ask more questions. It was a great ending and a convincing conclusion to a
debate. I think the pro team wasn't wrong when they repeatedly said that the other team didn't
answer the exact debate question and that what they said wasn't wrong but not what we were
talking about, but I also think that the con team's role was really more difficult and talking about
what they did was a way to prove their point even though it may have been farther from the actual
strict topic. To conclude, some made better statements and were more convincing in answering the
questions while others were a bit cornered, and I think once again the pro team won this debate but
the other team was also convincing and did a good job.