_text_

Who put no, just curious because why???

I think that alcohol should not be banned like Mason said, every once in a while won't hurt.

I think that this debate was a little bit better than the censorship one. Maybe that's just because we were used to the format, but I think that it was mainly because we had a little more collaboration and involvement (probably because alcohol is a topic that affects everyone). It seemed like the inner and outer circle interacted with each other a little more, so that was good, too.

I thought this was way better then the first debate because I am actually here. I enjoyed it I think the best point made was that everyone is affected by alcohol. Also masons point about economy was a pretty solid for that side. That was probably their best point but it is still about weither you chose lots of lives and loss over some jobs and benefits. I just laugh at how much everyone gets into this it is pretty cool

I wasn't here for the whole thing but it seemed fairly similar to our late debate. One of the things that I thought was better is that people listened to each other instead of just yelling out their ideas louder than everyone else.

This debate was a little less formal then the censorship debate because of the research. With Huck Finn we had a lot of the same research and the same points, while in this case we all did a little bit of individual research. I think that there were lots of good points that people made for both sides. I think that, while we need more practice at the fishbowl debate, we are getting better at this.

I think that this debate was better, because there were more points that were made. Also, there were more debaters in the inner circle, so there were more points from different people's research and ideas. I think that it could be improved by somehow having the inner circle people be able to read and comment off of the discussion going on in the outer circle.

I thought the outer and inner discusions went really well but I just wish that the outer circle and inner circle could somehow interact with each other.

I think this debate was more interesting than the first one because more people could relate to this topic. It was fun to be on the outer circle and being able to listen and comment on the inner circle. It was also nice to be able to have statistics for different things. It was a good debate.

Just from this MIddle School debate, i have learned that there are many opposing ideas, and these people arent' even of drinking age. Just think how in 7 years, how these same people will think. Will they drink, or will they stick with their ideas? Thats a question of the Ages.

i think that this debate went a lot more smoothly than the last one.

This debate did not have as divergent of results from my predictions as the last debate. The best point I think was that one drink can start a downhill tumble into an addict. I am curious to know how many people actually became an addict because of their first drink.

I liked doing the poll questions on this debate. I think there was a lot of good facts and details in this debate. It was a great debate.

This went a little better, but there should be more inner-outer circle interaction.

Reflection I feel that this was a good debate but not really useful though. Did we really solve anything about this topic. All we did was talk and use
computers but not solve anything. I do however think that the debate was good for our mindset on the topic and help each other
understand where we stand on the temperance movement. This was a good use of class time.

I liked the debate format. I was in the inner circle and I liked being able to see what was going on on the computer

I thought this was a good discussion. I think Mr. Wilkoff should keep both circles on the same topic, it was hard to relate from what we were saying to what they were saying.

I think that is went just as well as the firt debate. I think that it was good that the inner circle could see what was going on in the outer circle.

I think that this debate was very similar and not a lot of changes were made from the last one. I think that there should have been more time to NOT debate and HAVE to look at the online discussion, so that the people that were very involved in the inner circle would have a chance to look at the discussion online.

Debate format was good. The best point was the loss of job idea and liked having the visual of the outer circle.

I think this debate offered more insight than the last debate. I thought that our greatest point during the debate was about the lack of jobs if alcohol is banned because I didn't address that in my ARE sheet. It was interesting to hear the points and rebuttals on this topic.

This debate was a lot more heated. I loved the polls and I thought all of the poll people had good ideas. There was great evidence and discussion all around.

I liked the debate and the poll questions. I do think it would have been helpful if there were more sites promoting drinking alcohol, but unfortunately, people would take that the wrong way. This made it hard to get the much needed statistics.

Being in the inner circle is much more interesting than the inner circle because you really get to participate in the debate. The points made seemed to be expected, alcohol is bad for you, it has some health benefits etc. There really was no strongest point because they all seemed to lead to the same basic idea.

I think that this debate was very similar to the censorship debate, with a few things changed. For example, there was a little more outer-inner circle interaction in this debate than in the other one. However, I think that the "debate's structure" could be improved one main thing occurred. I think that there could be even more outer-inner circle interaction in this debate. Also, I think that the inner circle could possibly have computers to help them in their arguments and to further engage them in the outer circle's conversation.