Next Week's Debate: THB: The Story of Stuff is appropriate classroom material for elementary school students.

UPDATED UPDATE: 

Raising the bar - Rachel has gone to town in her post, both in terms of quality and quantity.  She's also, I think, the only student to go to bat for Leonard thus far, so if you are the the PRO on this debate, you might want to read her arguments for some ideas.  What is propaganda, and does The Story of Stuff fit into that definition? That's not in the debate motions, but could easily come up within the debate itself from the CON.  Rachel's post is informative, uses outside research, has a video, and is easy to read (separated into sections). I encourage you all to strive for this quality.

Youngsoo used the word "dubious" and I like it almost as much as "status quo."  He questions Leonard's vision of "circular production," which never really did get explained.  That might come up in a good debate.

Jiyeon's Critical Response really impressed me.  She describes The Story of Stuff as "the ultimate wolf in sheep's clothing."  Save that one for the debate - as it truly does illustrate how the video is a bit of a trojan horse for extreme rhetoric.  Her concise discussion detailing several fallacies is excellent and full of the language needed for a good debate.  Her research also turned up a nice online debate discussing the video.  If you want to score extra points in this class - please do the same.  Some of you haven't finished creating your blogs, or written your Critical Response:  if you want an A, get on it.  There won't be any easy A in this class.
 
The Aggressive Squeaker (a.k.a Sumin Park) has posted some powerful arguments against The Story of Stuff, and what I like about them is that they are very ready for a formal debate.  As I've discussed in class, a "road map" is one of the most important things to implement within your arguments, and she's clearly done this in her impressions of the video. 

If you are arguing against The Story of Stuff, check out Sumin's notes, as she's provided a good template to build from.  The language she uses and references to the material is all commendable.

I'm very happy with this years crop of debaters! Keep up the good work. 

Hello Debaters,

I'm happy to see most of you (60%) have started your blogs, and a handful of you have completed your first Critical Response. Remember these make up a large portion of your grades, so try and stay on top of them and participate in these online forums.

The Story of Stuff is a good debate, because it touches on many issues in many ways, and raises questions of validity and presentation. Having read your responses, most of you agree that Leonard's message is too strong and one sided. Compared to her other videos (Story of Cosmetics, Bottled Water etc.) it seems she toned things down a bit and isn't as "anti-establishment," but clearly her message is very left wing, and we have to question the kind of politics we allow in the classroom.  Hers probably does go too far.

So I've quoted a few of you below to continue the discussion:

Diane Ryoo said:

"While watching the video, I was constantly thinking-if everything is so harmful, the development, the manufacturing process, the ways people live, how are we going to live? If she is against manufacturing, what is she going to wear, what is she going to eat, and where is she going to live? How are we going to live without all these manufactured things? Is she suggesting that we could all go back to the primitive state and live in the Amazon? Her points SEEM reasonable, but when you come to think of it, it is just so idealistic."

I completely agree with Diane, and that's our knee-jerk reaction towards preachy environmentalists.  Do they walk the walk and talk the talk?  Are they realistic? Some are, some are not.  Guys like John Travolta, the actor, tell us to be "green," and then go out and buy a private jet which has a massive carbon footprint.  But then there are people like Julia Butterfly Hill, who really are living green.  Definitely, they are idealistic - and the fact is we need these people to usher in change.   Recycling used to be a bit of a joke in the early 90's, but today it's a reality that does make a difference.  I think Leonard is, for the most part, asking us to question some of our behaviors, and to definitely "shop less."  Do we need everything we buy?  Are we a materialistic culture that is wasteful?  I think we are, and we are encouraged to be.  But are we living on a hamster wheel of consumption, where we are forced to live a life of work/tv/shopping mall to make the rich richer?  Good question.  We may not need facts to discuss this at all.

Here are Diane's Motion suggestions.

#1. THS: the education of children based on User Created Contents(UCC).
#2. THB: the manufacturing process must be put to an end.
#3. THB: User Created Contents(UCC) are effect tools for confirming one's ideas. 

I really like the first one - or any debate related to UCC.  We might save that one for later.  The second one is good, but we might change "put to an end" to become "reevaluated." 

Daniel Kim had some good observations:

"I know that this video can provide us some creative ideas and new perspectives on the issue of current economy, but the video being used for education should be reconsidered seriously, for the video might cause many disadvantages. If an educator wants to use this video, I really want to recommend him or her to find another class material which shows the perspective of the other side  - so that students can think of what is right or wrong in an unbiased situation." 

I agree completely.  But what I'd like to pose is this question:  if Leonard is North, who is South, and what does THAT video say?  Is it Dobb's?  Who would you rather have over for dinner, and what would you serve them?  What car would they show up in? 


Jack Hyun raises a good question of validity - and how we can dress up an issue with "facts."

"However, I got a little dissatisfied with the statistics used for the material. Even though the video excelled at explaining the core of the problem of this system, the statistics from which the explanation became persuasive were usually manipulated and, sometimes, even faked. What Lee Doren's rebuttal video has done, although it was not persuasive enough and a bit old-fashioned, is to attack the details and statistics of the video clip, which was quite effective in degrading the significance of the clip."

Very very true, and it shows us how "facts" and "stats" often have this magical ability to seem real and true simply by being presented as "facts" and "stats."  Whose are they and how did they make them?  Who did the math?  All things we should consider.  Notice how Leonard says we only have a small percentage left of our "original" forests.  Is she lying?  No.  It's very true.  But what does "original" mean?  Are we counting the "forests" that the dinosaurs might have eaten shortly after the Big Bang?  Here we see how one word can really play with meaning and accuracy.  I encourage you as debate students to find these instances and attack them.

Here are Jack's motions:

1. THB ecosystems can coexist with material economy.


2. THW allow elementary school teachers to show materials that contain specific opinions.


3. THB the current level of financial aid is enough for less developed nations. 

Excellent suggestions, and all of them could definitely form a debate - and the last one rings a bell and might have been used at a GLPS camp.  We'd have to narrow it down to specific nations perhaps. The second one is also good.  When are children old enough to form their own views despite what a heavy handed teacher might be teaching?  Parents should and often do question what teacher's teach, and sometimes it isn't always black or white, and often very gray.  If, as a parent, I owned a computer store, and my child came home and said he didn't want a new computer because he wanted to save the environment, what might I say? The third one is also good, and very wide open.  We'd have to come up with examples.  An obvious one is the fastfood industry and the destruction of the Amazon.  If Macdonald's required all customers "eating in" to use plastic plates and reusable cups, how many soccer fields a minute would that save?


Wonhyuk continues this line of reasoning:

"What kept me listening to her was her statistics. That made her persuasive, that backed up her opinion. After watching Dobb's critique, however, I saw that the statistics were wrong. Okay, and here's my three motions."


1. THB schools should only teach evolution, not creation in biology class.


2. THB the government should include communism and socialism in education, with great detail.


3. THB teachers do not have the freedom of speech when they are teaching to young students who are prone to influence. 

Big issues that are being fought over constantly, and I like the first one - as the Catholics are always dealing with this.  I think the second one is a bit weak, but that's from my Canadian perspective.  I had plenty of education about other forms of government, and it became repetitive and boring.  But was I taught communism and socialism were good or bad?  How Korean education treats these I'd like to know. 


Thanks to all of you for participating, and please contribute to the online discussions by commenting on each others thoughts - and of course debating!