- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Nowadays, in genereal, the hierarchy present in relationships is being more balanced, despite someone having a more prestigious position in society, there is a common sense been developed that independent of the position this person have to respect people ideas and thoughts. It is happening, for example, in companies, each person has a position, but independent of it everybody have the same right of expressing opinions, what change is only the possibility of the idea being used, but the chance of being heard is the same.
Therefore, in my opinion I believe that this change is a tendency, despite people having their positions in society they know that they have the same rights of expressing ideas.
However, I think that when we are talking about relationships at school, between teacher and students things are not so simple, depending on the age of the students and their values this sense of authoritie does not exist. So, the kind of relationship between a student and a teacher will change according to the situation. For example, teachers that teach for children will not have the same behaviour that an academic professor have with his/her students.Anyway, it is possible to mantaing a good and not distance relationship.
Veronica is right , prostitution will not be eradicated so soon, thus what our government should do is to improve the working conditions of these professionals. Moreover, controlling it would prevent not only series of diseases, but also sexual violence against these women , as they will have their rights and authorities to ask when they need.
Legalizing prostitution will not increase inequality between women and men. Despite men 'using' prostitutes bodies as a product these women will have profit with it, therefore, both sides have benefits.
Of course this is not a solution to all the problems, doing this will not eliminate moral prejudice or drugs traffic, for example.However, it can give conditions to future changes.Maids, for example, have their working situation legalized, anyway it have not finished neither the exploration against these women or the social prejudice. Nevertheless, nowadays they have their own statute, own rights and better working conditions.
Voting should not be compulsory, I think that different of what have been said for Amanda and Hanna, electors do not gain knowledge and political education voting as an obligation.To believe that people watch debates, search for information about candidates, read newspapers and so on just because they need to vote would be so naive. People do not do this when voting as an obligation. Citizens who search for information do this because they want to know what is happening in the policy and also know that it is the better way to take a decision when voting. The point is this part of the population that do this maybe would vote even if they were not obligated as they are interested in the topic.
The obligation of voting leads people who are not concerned about policy giving votes for candidates they even know. Therefore, the question is, what is better: few , but conscious people voting or a large number of unconscious votes?
Despite sexuality being an important topic, and learning more about it could mean to prevent diseases and non expected pregnancy, there are another topics that students could learn at school that would prevent another harmfull things as well, and they do not have acess to these subjects. For example, teenagers have a frequent contact with legal or ilegal drugs throughout their lives, which can be dangereous for their health and morality, but they sometimes do not know the damages these things can cause because they were not taught about them. So, if sexuality should be a mandatory subject due to this importance to prevent certain things, another subjects should be included with the same purpose.
For example, in a prior debate of our group, we were discussing whether Libras should be a mandatory subject, and one of the arguments used against it was that there were neither space in the scholar schedule or prepared professionals to do it.Libras is important as well as teaching about sexuality, but perhaps the educational system is not prepared to deal with it.
More over to give to teachers the responsability of teaching it is once taking parents out of the obligation of participating of their children life.
There are another subjects that could be included in the scholar schedule, but how to decide which of them is the most necessary to be included?
The teaching of LIBRAS should not only be seen as a problematic change in schools’ schedule, but as a form of changing positions of deaf people in society. If the new generation have the option of learning it to live with no problems of communication between them and the deaf, there is no reason for it does not happen.
If someone found a deaf at streets, for example, in most part of cases the person will be not able to talk with them. As a consequence, if they need some information, the person will not understand and will not help them.
The Deaf are citizens of our society. However, if they cannot at least have a dialogue with people, perhaps they are being kind of excluded ( as it does not make sense they make part of a group which does not understand them).
Therefore, despite we have other educational system problems, we cannot use it as a reason to not include LIBRAS in schools’ schedule, as it is a step forward solutions to make these people a real part of the society rather an excluded. It is true we do not have enough space even to current compulsory subjects. But, analyzing things in such a way people are only thinking about themselves. If it is difficult to learn subjects such Math, Portuguese, Chemistry, Physics and so on, imagine if either a person’s friends or teachers were not able to understand their doubts.
So, maybe people are concerned only with majority problems and they are not observing that a society is also made by smaller groups, and as they are citizens they have the right to be heard, even if it be by sign languages.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!