- 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.
A closer relationship between teachers and students could have a lot of benefits, such as the feeling of being at a safe environment free from humiliation that could have a direct and positive effect at the student's academic performance, since the students don't hesitate in asking questions during the classroom. Apart from that, it could also mean a healthy and stable structure for students that have some problem at home. In that way, the students could project their affective needs, that should have been filled by their parents, to another section of society they are used to: the school and the teachers.
If it is decided that voting will be voluntary in Brazil, the people that would vote would be the ones that are actually interested in making difference in Brazil's political system, and the porcentage of well informed and prepared voters would increase, elevating the number of qualified politicians that would be elected. In an ideal world, people would get motivated to get informed if voting is an obligation, but that is not realistic. A large part of the population votes only because they do not wish to suffer the consequences for not doing their duty, so they use questionable methods in order to choose their candidate. It is every citizen's right to think about the nation's situation and being able to be a part of it, but it shouldn't be an obligation. Citizens that would participate in the voting process would be the people that are prepared to consider all options and make a good decision regarding our contry's need. We shouldn't underestimate our population and assume no one would vote if it were not compulsory. Even if the number of people that are interested in politics is not very significant, at least the small portion of attending voters that would decide the future of our nation would be prepared to do so.
There is no reason to give a random group of people the right to choose what the rest of the population should see or hear and what kind of programs we should watch. It is more than enough that the television only shows partial news and all of the information that is broadcasted is chosen by the broadcasting station, and not all of the relevant data the population has a right to know are coming across through the media.
I agree with Giovanna and Cintia, with this new technologic development we have been experiencing comes an obligation: it is not possible anymore to simply be offline. People expect you to be online everyday: your friends, your boss, your teachers and society as a whole. We no longer have the privilege of choosing whether we want to be dependent on technology or not, that choice has already been made for us. There are no excuses for not checking your e-mail frequently, not being reachable over the internet and not being able to read that text for next class that is only available through a website. It is no longer a question of whether we are too dependent on technology, but of if we can choose not being enslaved without running the risk of excluding ourselves from society.
I agree with Bruno and the girls. Although quotas really are a way to ensure higher education for people that otherwise would have no possiblity of entering college, the ideal solution would be to improve basic education, in order to make sure that students at public schools are able to reach the same educational level as private school students. We all have the same intelectual ability, what is missing is the creation of opportunities so that everyone may enter college at the same level and with the same basic education. Quotas may be a short term solution, but when you create alternatives instead of actually facing the problem you run the risk of settling down, like everyone already said, and it will only take longer to solve the real problem, which is the insufficient basic education people with no financial means are exposed to in this country.
(Jessica1E e Cintia1E)
Speaking and listening form the main channel of communication between men since the appearance of mankind. However, this distich can be replaced by other forms of communication. To the deaf community, the way found was to develop a sign language, which is not just a gesturing of an idiom, but a completely new language, with a whole new system of organization. In Brazil, the sign language is known as LIBRAS: Língua Brasileira de Sinais - Brazilian sign language, but its knowledge is not widespread, keeping deaf people apart from society. With that in mind, a question arises: should be compulsory in all Brazilian schools the LIBRAS teaching?
The question has been a long struggle between the Brazilian deaf community and MEC, Ministério da Educação – Brazilian Ministry of Education – mostly because the last doesn’t acknowledge LIBRAS as a language, but as the Portuguese language spoken through gestures. The fact that MEC chooses to ignore is that LIBRAS is the only language that should be official in Brazil besides Portuguese, since in Brazil there are two kind of native speakers: the ones that speak Portuguese and the ones that have LIBRAS as their only way of communication.
The Brazilian population, in fact, seems to be ultimately concerned about the learning of other languages that we use to communicate with people from other countries, even including them in schools´ curriculum, while also being indifferent to the learning of a language that would enable us to communicate with people from our own country. The deaf, therefore, isolate themselves in their own community because of their impossibility to communicate, except by writing, with listeners who do not know LIBRAS. With the teaching of LIBRAS, they would have a better chance to include themselves in society, becoming participating members in schools, in the labor market and even in politics. Also, the number of deaf in Brazil is quite significant to be ignored. From 190 732 694 people in Brazil, 9 717 318 of them are declared deaf with some, a lot or a total inability of hearing, according to IBGE statistics in 2010.
The listeners’ lack of knowledge about the matter produces prejudice and the accommodation of these people. It is common to find parents who refuse to admit the hearing deficiency of their child especially because, according to Northern & Downs, 90% of deaf children have parents that are listeners and are not used to the deaf issue. If there were a better structure to deaf people in Brazil, particularly the teaching of LIBRAS, Brazilian parents who face this problem would accept it more easily, knowing that their child would not be apart from society.
Thus, it is clear that the deaf community in Brazil should have their language widespread to enable communication between them and listeners, putting an end to prejudice and to the exclusion of the deaf. And for this, the teaching of LIBRAS in all schools in Brazil is essential.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!