Should Peru’s government continue its ban on genetically modified organisms? Should it limit the development of squatter communities? Should Peru continue to pay motorists to retire older vehicles from Lima’s streets? Is tourism a great thing for Peru? And are Peruvians and North Americans basically the same at heart?
Lucas and Brody argue against the motion.
These provocative questions were discussed and debated by Goshen College students during a recent afternoon at Casa Goshen. SST Co-Directors Judy Weaver and Richard R. Aguirre developed the idea of having the students explore these issues in an academic exercise inspired by the radio program “Intelligence Squared U.S.,” Oxford-style debates heard on National Public Radio.
For the Goshen version, teams of students were asked to take and defend positions on contemporary issues and also attempt to rebut the other side during three spirited rounds of arguments. Richard, who served as moderator, asked team members challenging questions to test their positions. Student audience members also contributed questions. After final summations, students voted on which side did the best job. The winner was determined by which team persuaded the greatest number of audience members to abandon their original positions and adopt the winning team’s position.
In the end, and based on the greatest number of audience members switching sides, students concluded that: Peru’s ban on GMOs should continue; the government should limit further squatter communities; tourism is not great for Peru; and Peruvians and North Americans are more different than similar. On the question of removing older vehicles, there were no changes in positions, so the debate ended in a tie.
Students rated the debates as one of their most enjoyable and informative learning activities. One student wrote that the debates were “a good exploration of current issues in Peru. It was challenging, but I learned a lot.” Another wrote, “Incredibly fun and brought out a lot of stimulating conversation as well as ideas.”
Students settle in to listen to the debates.
The motion is “Peru should continue its ban on Genetically-Modified Organisms.”
Derek and Emma argue in favor of the motion.
Lucas and Brody argue against the motion.
The second debate begins.
Edith and Joel argue for, and Brian and Andrew against.
Brian reminds us of the crushing poverty and lack of services in Lima’s squatter communities.
Edith argues that Lima’s slums at least allow people to move closer to jobs, education and health care.
Audience members had a chance to challenge the debaters with questions.
Richard, a former journalist, is great at giving the debaters meaty questions.
Joel makes a point.
Andrew rebuts.
Rapt attention.
We all had something of a stake in this question, since we had just returned from a week as tourists in Cusco and Machu Picchu.
Leah and Sierra argue for the motion; Stefan and Miranda against.
Stefan argues that tourism is an economic boon for Peru.
Leah points out that the money coming in due to tourism is not being used to adequately protect Peru’s cultural heritage.
Audience members sometimes began to debate amongst themselves.
Another topic near to our hearts, since we all ride public transportation daily.
Alejandro and Tim agree with the motion, while Derek and Matt argue the opposite side.
Tim argues that eliminating older vehicles will reduce pollution and improve safety.
Matt points out that the buses and taxis provide work for many people.
Alejandro drives home a point.
This topic may sound touchy-feely, but it brought out some stimulating discussion.
Michael argued that basic human desires for family, home and happiness are the same for all humans.
Jaime argued that Peruvian and American cultures have vastly different ways of defining and pursuing life, liberty and happiness.
Richard asked how people can live successfully in other cultures, if we are so different.
Students wondered if we could even say that all USA citizens are the same at heart.
The discussion quickly moved to differences in understanding of the phrase “at heart.”
It was a surprisingly compelling discussion, for students living abroad.
As guests in Peru, we find surprising connections, but also are daily confronted with our differences.
What specifically are the differences in our hearts?
In the end, and based on the greatest number of audience members switching sides, students concluded that: Peru’s ban on GMOs should continue; the government should limit further squatter communities; tourism is not great for Peru; and Peruvians and North Americans are more different than similar. On the question of removing older vehicles, there were no changes in positions, so the debate ended in a tie.
