The assignment for week six was definitely and interesting one. Personally, I enjoy debating, and arguing, so it has been a fun week for me. I put in more effort this week, re-reading the assigned articles for the module, and continually checking to see if the "pro group" had posted their rebuttal. When reading their rebuttal, it was almost as if my body had been taken over. I instantly started coming up with arguments to make, and jotting down the specific quotes from their post so that I could reference the precise spots in which they were wrong. After what had only seemed like an hour, I looked up to see that it was approaching 11pm. I had been working for hours. In this post, I am going to talk about how I think the "pro group" did, what point I believe they should have made, and how I think the exercise went overall.
One point that started to drive some of our group members crazy, was the fact that the pro group did not have a basic definition of what they believed fundamental change was, specifically. If I were in their group, I would have made the example of the international environment changing from a bipolar world, to a multipolar world as the point that fundamental change is possible. This argument alone would have made me struggle to oppose the idea that fundamental change is not only possible, but that it already happened in the international environment. The group could have then based all of their arguments on this one point, that it has happened before, and therefore it is possible to happen again.
Overall, I think the exercise, including the class discussion, went well. It was more of each side arguing why they were right, and less trying to convince the other side that their view was wrong. I do not believe that any minds were changed during this activity. During the class discussion, some people got a little testy, including myself, when our personal arguments were under scrutiny. This was a fun exercise, but took more work than our usual interactive group activities. This activity only worked to emphasize my view of humanity, that all humans are just self-interested. That humans will look out for their own security, and believing that this will never change. In conclusion, I guess that I was lucky to be placed in the group that was based on realist theory, as I believe that I am generally a realist when it comes to international relations, even though I did end up agreeing with a Green Bay Packers fan. I guess there is a first for everything.
https://auisgroup1summer18.blogspot.com/2018/06/fundamental-change-what-week.html
First, I was glad to have you on our side in the debate! I don't tend to be argumentative but I found myself having the same reaction to the Pro's team when it was posted. I agree that the lack of definition of fundamental change was difficult but it's something I've been frustrated with throughout the readings. If no one can agree what fundamental change is, how do we examine whether or not it's possible? In the end, even if you didn't change your mind about fundamental change, you did agree with a Packers fan so maybe fundamental change IS possible!
ReplyDelete