“Mean Screens Hurt Teens: Unplugging Cyberbullying”

 

 Create a solid information base
In the deliberation, there were three approaches that people could discuss their personal experience related to cyberbullying. The proposals were preventing cyberbullying from either family and community, school and institutions, or social media platforms. From every three approaches, students in the deliberations and attendants tried to describe their personal experience or insight into the issue of cyberbullying to make it more understandable and compelling for the audience in the debate.

 

 Ensure mutual comprehension
Having a deliberation is not trying to force someone’s opinion to each other. It is attempting to discussing an appeal on another’s opinion to specify what would be the best solution for such issue. There is no need to be emotionally tensed and higher their volume in the discussion. It is necessary to talk plainly and logical and appeal to their opinions. Our deliberation team was sufficient in managing to stay rational and continue the conversation and ask for clarification if they did not understand.

 

 Weigh the pros, cons, and trade-offs among solutions
From arguing the three solutions for the cyberbullying, every group prepared the benefits and the detriments of each solution. Each group did not try to force their approach by only mentioning the advantages of the answer, but also admitting the limitation of it. They weighted well with the pros and cons of earning agreement and disagreement from the audience’s opinion.

 

 

 

“Student Life at Penn State: What to do on a Friday Night?”

 

This deliberation’s topic was to find whether there are other not activities to participate on Friday nights other than partying. This discussion was related to whether the night activities that are programmed by the school in the hub is efficient to draw students attention or not. Also, it asked whether there could be other activities to enjoy that is not related to alcohol use.

 

 Adequately distribute speaking opportunities
Unlike our discussion, I liked the way the debate was progressed out. The audiences were separated into groups, and each approach came to the group and asked our own opinions about the night activities on Friday night. As the viewers were into smaller groups, there were more opportunities to listen to other people’s views on the issue. All students had the turn to participate in the conversation. From our deliberation, I was pleased that even though there were only four audiences, we managed to have active discussions. However, I feel that we didn’t balance the debate well.

 

 Identify a broad range of solutions
Many suggestions could drive student’s attention to other activities on a Friday night: improving the marketing for the sports activities, late night hub activities, programming different club activities by the school or student clubs. All the audiences tried to give the best solution out for the topics. However, it would have been better to make the topic clearer whether it is necessary for different activities to replace the partying culture in Penn State. The team made it sound only “negative” about partying, so other people’s opinion about the Friday night party was just one-sided.

 

 Consider other ideas and experience
All the students in the group waited patiently to listen to other people’s opinion whether they agree or not. The audiences did not try to interrupt and force their insight into others while someone was talking. We respected others, but that doesn’t the group hid their disagreement.

 

 

 

Both the deliberation was more than I expected. People in each debate tried to appreciate each other’s opinions even though not everyone agreed on it. People shared their experience without hesitation in making it more apparent why they support such solutions to the topic. There wasn’t much difference in the discussion itself, but I did notice what each team tried to focus on. Our deliberation more focused on the team itself to talk about the solutions, while the other team gave a question about the topic and asked the audience to give a solution themselves.

 

 

I am unsatisfied that both sides chose topics that were quite hard to discuss as we all knew the answer (solution) to each issue. Still each team did a splendid work!