It was a very satisfying day, not because it was ease, but it stirred me a lot. It was on 19th, February 2014 and we had English Communication Laboratory. We were scheduled to have a mock Group-discussion event, and every group must discuss on a topic chosen on spot from lots. On the day, we had three GDs happening.
•Theism Vs Atheism
•Tuition should be banned or not
•Are women better managers?
I was in the group which spoke about the tuition. And, in the first discussion about theism, I found people opting for atheism because of the evils done by the theists, not just as they disagree with the absence of a belief, but because the beliefs existing are not worth providing good to everyone. Unfortunately, after the debate I too spoke against the atheists, i.e., the students who speak for atheists, but not the real idea of atheism itself.
Then, our discussion started. I was against banning of tuition centers, as I too go and take tuition to students, it would be completely wrong if I opposed it. But some of the points that they say made me think even after the debate a lot. They said, because of the tuition centers, children spend little time with parents, friends and neighbors. They hardly play. They hardly relax. They are going behind the marks.
Sorry that I didn’t manage to listen to the third debate, because of a guy sitting near me. :-p But Naren was speaking that the women were better managers, which I glimpsed as and when during the discussion. I was convinced about that, when I heard that topic itself, with my personal observation with my mother itself. So, I was also not very careful enough to hear the views.
The thing that kept me on is ‘The people have a great critic observation when they look into the system in which they are not in’ (to be precise, someone else system).
As I would quote from my GD itself, people who spoke about the ‘marks marks’ thing, forget to think that they are discussing the necessity of tuition centers only for the internal marks in ECL, and for nothing else. Even with the Ism debates, they never look into why they are better, or not better, but they wanted to show, why the opposition is worse.
You wanna great conclusion? a defined conviction? Just look at you, judge yourselves, validate yourselves. You will get the correct answer. Not by looking around you.