_text_

I thought that this was amazing because you could tell what was going on in both the inner and outer circle. I really liked how others also joined our conversation. We have to do this again.

I liked the idea of an inner and an outer circle, but something that was a little more live, since when I place a point, I wait 5 minutes until the point is actually posted. Either put in more mods or make it something a little more real-time.

It's a very.... odd process. I think the pro-censorship won, because they were very convincing and had their facts.

But I didn't like the format of the debate. No conclusions were come to, nobody tried to compromise or level between them, which is unfortunately current with almost every debate. I want to see more agreeing then arguing, because arguing never gets us anywhere. I didn't get any satisfaction of solution from this.

I think that this is a good way to debate, but we need to have a way of not letting people talk over each other. Also, we need people to be more specific with their arguments, because a lot aren't very specific.

I really liked this. We built off each other and all got to have a say in stuff. I also enjoyed the people from out of state who joined in the conversation with us.

For this process, I liked that there could be two different discussions at once. The outer circle could have debates of their own or they could debate what the inner circle was talking about. It was also a good idea for people to be able to jump into the debate that were on the outer circle. The people that jumped in did a good job!

I think that this was very productive we had very good points. The pro side had the best results and had the best comments, attacks, and rebutles. I think that this was fun and loved getting to argue.

I like how this showed both points of the Mark Twain debate. It was cool to hear this battle being discussed in class. I also liked the way that people that weren't in the debate could still discuss over the computer on the debate page. I personally liked answering the poll questions and I did that most of the time. It was cool to see the percents of the responses to each question.

This process really worked for me. I liked how there was multiple discussions going on at the same time. I think that it worked because you can have many different people discussing the same topic at the same time, and in the same room. I think because we used this format, we covered a ton of points. One thing that could be done differently is the # of open chairs because then there could be more people in the argument at the same time.

I thought that this was a good form of debate. I thought that we kind of went off on tangents and had nothing to bring us back together. Like 4ways said I would have liked to have a bell so that we could have said what we wanted, when we wanted. But I think that overall it was good.

I think that this type of debate allows everyone to voice their ideas clearly without being interrupted. It was cool how people on the outer circle were able to jump into the debate when they had a constructive comment to add. Debates and other controversies were going on behind the inner circle that also added to the debate without distracting the people who were arguing their points.

well pretty much we won. i think this format wasn't any better than a formal regular debate. there was two very seperate discussions and i think with it could have been more intertwined. also i think that this really wasn't accurate.

I think that the debate was good but I think we where going to deep into the personal level. I believe that it would be better to have another debate on how the parents should sensor it.

I really liked it. I think that it is a very effective process. I liked the whole inner outer circle. I don't think any one really won. Both sides had great points. I would like to do a "fishbowl" debate again some time.

I thought that this was a good format but I think that we need to have at least 5 people tallying the points to have a non-biased score because it is impossible for a person to be entirely non biased. We should definitely do this again though. I believe that the anti-censorship completely won.

Wow, I didn't think there were so many reasons to support either side. As the debate heated up, everybody needed new solutions to each of the posed questions. Now I can basically see the debate from either side after hearing all this discussion. I think that this method is great and the result of this debate is pretty even. I'm hoping that we can do this again.

I think that this went really well. No one took off on any tangents, both in the inner and the outer circle, and there were a lot of good points being made. One thing I wish we could change, though, would be the interaction between the inner and the outer circle. The inner circle would be focused on their conversation, and the outer circle would mostly be focused on their online conversation, but there wasn't much collaboration between the groups. This is the only thing that I would change, other than that, it was good, and we had a lot of in-depth collaboration.

I think this was a good debate so we could see everyones opinions and views, as the outer circle. I think that we should go through some of the conversation of the outside that was good. This way, we can see some of the posts that we missed because I couldn't read all the good posts and listen to the inside. I also think that we could look at some of the good question posts and discuss on them.
I think this was a great way to do two sided debates, we should totally do it again.

I thought this worked fairly well I liked the way that the inner outer circle thing worked the only thing that i think could have been done differently was that it seemed like too many people were talking at a time in the inner circle and you were only heard if you were loud enough to interupt and then get and keep people's attention even while other people were trying to interupt.

I liked the fact that there was an inner circle and outer circle, and that the outer circle was able to hear our debate and that they could comment on it on the computer or they can jump into our conversation at any point. The only thing that I'd want to be different is, that the inner circle should be able to see what the outer circle is debating. I really liked doing this and I hope we do it again.

i think that the format is kinda of weird but overall it is effective. i think that the inner circle should have laptops too so they can follow the outer conversation too.

This debate was definitely beneficial for me. I think that the Anti-censorship side should have swept the floor but the pro side surprised me. The pro side did amazing and definitely beat out the anti side but I think there were more great points on the anti side but they were not said.

I don't think that there really was a winner, arguing against censorship seems to be a mush easier prospect, especially once you bring up the idea of connecting words to history and history to culture. Using the idea that censoring different words is a form of censoring history and therefore culture. From that standpoint, arguing against the book is basically hopeless. However, some of the points that the Pro-Censorship side brought up were effective.

I like this format, but I think the inner circle should be able to more easily see the outer circle's conversation. I also think there should be more inner circle people, more open seats, and the open seats should be timed so people have to switch out.

I really liked this debate. It more or less "finalized" my learning on this topic. I also liked using CoverItLive to debate all of this for the people on the outer circle and I enjoyed using the "Fishbowl" format to "debate it out". On the topic of the side that won the debate, I think that both sides came very close to winning.

i think this dissucssion was amazing, we had more deep thoughts going on in this short amount of time than we usualy do in a whole class period, good job everyone!