Debating has not been my strength, ever! I don’t usually involve in conflicts because I personally try to avoid it. Plus, English is my second language and I always get embarrassed talking in public because I’m scared that my accent, grammar or pronunciation went wrong. As a result, ethics debate was such a challenge for me from day 1 that I had to prepare for it. I spent a lot of time writing the points that I wanted to say and kept practicing in front of a mirror just to keep the fluency. Just before the workshop started, Nathan, Josh and myself decided our order of presenting and we would stick to it so that everyone would have a chance to announce their arguments. We also agreed that Josh would be the main one debating and opposing any idea that other team presented because it was his responsibility to do research about it. Furthermore, Nathan and myself can back Josh up during the debating. Although we were quite organised I was still very nervous so I tried to read over and over my notes so everything sank into my brain.
Surprisingly, the debate went quite smoothly and I actually wanted to stay and say more than I prepared. I felt like 15 minutes was not enough. I guess it was because when we started talking about a topic that we all interested in, we were attracted to the flow and the passion of expressing ourselves to everybody. Despite a few times that I found it difficult to pronounce or think of a vocabulary, I am pleased that I tried my best. I would rate myself 7/10 in this debate exercise because I contributed majority of the time. Moreover, when Mac asked us a question that we actually had not prepared, I was quite confident to address her points and I felt like it did make sense and convincing. Unlike my expectation, I was actually the one that spoke out the most. I thought I would be shy as I used to dislike any arguments and conflicts. In fact, I enjoyed the debate because it was more a friendly discussion and moreover, I really liked this topic of euthanasia that I wanted to protect my views in front of everybody.
Even though I am quite pleased in the individual level, I expected my team worked a little bit better. During the debate, everyone actively contributed and critically presented their arguments. However, this could be better if we had engaged the audiences to our topic. For example, we could have asked the audiences simple questions such as “Does anyone know what is euthanasia” or “Raise your hand if you think euthanasia is suicide” Instead of doing an introduction of the topic, we could have caught the attention by doing this way. In order to achieve that, our team needed to do more cooperation and communication next time because it was not just about wining-losing but also the effect that the whole team brought to the audiences. I hope this could be a good experience for us to think outside the box and be more creative on what we are doing for next assignment.
If someone asked me would I change my mind after the debate about euthanasia, my answer would definitely be “No”. The main reason for it was I strongly believed in what I have read, watched and understood about euthanasia, so nothing can possibly change my mind. Sometime during the preparation time, I questioned myself: if it was me or my family members, would I choose euthanasia? I answered yes to myself so I strongly support this despite social, religious and ethical arguments surrounding it. Having said that, the opposing team did a very good job that brought up some new ideas about euthanasia that I have not really thought about. For instance, they mentioned if euthanasia were legalised, it would be perfect for doctors who are mentally abnormal to take the opportunity killing patients. Although I absolutely support euthanasia, the legalisation of this would be a significant challenge step in the medical world.