THBT School Is Still Relevant

Valentin Derepas is FOR the motion

George Washington Carver said: “Education is the key to unlocking the golden door of freedom”. Thanks to school, everyone can get the knowledge that is so important for our futures! Education helps us understand the world and makes us independent-minded and able to rely on ourselves. And a well-informed and educated people can make a democracy work properly. Education is what makes us good citizens. How would you have been able to take part in this debate without the education you get from this school?

The French school system was only set up in 1881 (by Jules Ferry). It was a major advance for society! And it works pretty well today, so why do we want to reform it?! I hear that we “work too much”, is that it? It’s not the fault of the school system if we have become lazy in this country! Taking advantage of a good education does still mean having to work hard…

My final comment is this: school is relevant on a daily basis to 15 Million pupils; if we get rid of school, what will all those young people do?!

William Devouard is AGAINST the motion

Well, I’d like to thank my opponent for sharing his point of view… There are several points I’d like to go over with you if I may, Valentin?

First, you said something to the effect that school turns us into model citizens. Fair enough, but who in this room thinks he’s a good citizen thanks to school? OK, well you have obviously been brainwashed! School should be a place to acquire knowledge, not where you are indoctrinated into believing the State is right!

Then, you said school is important because it makes us able to think for ourselves, but actually we are just ingesting an incredible amount of facts, concepts, formulae, dates, etc., so that we can vomit them all back up on exam day…

You described the school system as still being efficient. No, it might have improved things in the 19^th century, but it is not adapted to today’s society; there are more things to learn, ever more ways to learn, and many more pupils too.

You said that school was a way of keeping under control 15 million. There are surely less expensive and boring ways of keeping them busy?!

There are way too many pupils per class and each year it gets worse. We will end up with fifty kids in a single room with just one teacher unable to give individual help. Very 19^th century in fact…

We should use new technologies! Pupils could learn at home, when they are ready to learn. In school, it is impossible to concentrate all day long in a classroom which is boring, overcrowded, smelly, too cold or too hot… With lessons via internet, they wouldn’t lose time going from home to school; there would be no more issues about being off sick or about missing a lesson, etc. Teachers would still be useful in helping pupils when they need help.

One day, school will be totally irrelevant. Learning will be so much more easy and fun…  Why wait?!

Emeric Desjeux is FOR

William said that the educational system in France hasn’t changed since Jules Ferry founded it. This is not true: in 1959 school became compulsory until the age of 16, since 1968 the uniform is no longer compulsory, and since 1970 most schools are coeducational. And there are frequent reforms of the system.

Nowadays, a student in high school only has on average thirty hours of class per week. A Science major can also study Philosophy. A Literature major can study Math or Physics. Knowledge is wide-ranging in the French system. Everyone can study Latin or Greek.

Knowledge is happiness and vice-versa, and most people find both at school!

Kiên Denier is AGAINST

Do you really think that school is fulfilling, that it is a place where you learn how to take your responsibilities and where you learn how to think for yourself, a place where you learn how to become an adult?

I consider school more like a place full of angst, a place full of stress. Did you know that stress can permanently damage brain cells and even damage the hippocampus, the area of the brain responsible for generating new memories and retrieving old ones? I don’t want to know the state of my brain cells after spending almost my whole life in the stressful institution that SCHOOL is!

Plus do you feel happy coming to school every morning? Because education is supposed to “unlock the golden door of freedom”, it should be a pleasure! It is not! When I arrive in front of the school; my first thought is to check if all my homework is done, so I will not get humiliated by the teachers in front of the whole class. Then I check if I have not forgotten to revise for exams. I spend my whole day stressing out…Just like you all.

And, when I get back home, after my nine hours at school, I am not in the mood to do my homework, because I’m tired!

Because, let’s be honest for a second, school is ruled by an education system which is based on humiliation. You don’t believe me? I’m quite sure that every single person in this room can remember a teacher humiliating a student! For example, when a teacher hands out the students’ papers from the best to the worst ones…Or the “innocent” comments a teacher makes to a “bad student” such as: “this is rubbish”, “look at your grades: if you have any dreams you can abandon them, you won’t succeed in reaching them” or more usually “you didn’t do your homework, I’m not surprised, you’ve never worked hard”.

Another example: streamed classes which are just so elitist, making the so-called “bad students” feel… bad. The value and potential of a human being should not be calculated according to his school grades! Humiliation is not fulfilment; it’s what fascism is based on.

As William said, the world is changing, times are changing, and school has to adapt to the new realities of our era. We are in the twenty first century! So let’s be pragmatic. Let’s create a system which takes into account reality. According to several scientific studies, a student is not able to focus before 9:30am, and can only learn efficiently for five hours a day. So what’s the point in starting a school day at 8 am, and finishing at 6:00pm?

How can we support a school system that is failing so many?! We are people, not machines, and all different from each other. We are not all able to focus for the same amount of time, or learn the same quantity of information, or learn in the same way. Our individuality should be respected. The school system annihilates the individual and his capacity to learn.

Seneca said, and I’m sure you’ll all agree: “We learn not in school, but in life”.

Romain Bullon is FOR

I would like to insist on the fact that school is where you learn to live with others which is very important for your future. As an adult, you don't live or work alone, you always need others. If you start educating yourself at home with computers and internet, you will become a sociopathic vegetable! School is not just a place where you learn things; school is where you learn about life.

When you work on a particularly subject you learn better when you are with others, you can compare your point of view with what others think. Furthermore the fact that you work with others stimulates your thoughts. A bit of healthy competition also increases motivation and results.

Learning at home will be more expensive; in France school is basically free and you can consult a wide choice of books at the school library.

At school you learn, but you can also eat, read, speak with your friends, and even snooze! You can also go on school trips which are a great learning experience. In fact, school is a good place to live your life!

The French school system is the 16^th best in the world… In other words it is among the best!

Victor Monier is AGAINST

I listened carefully to what you've said Romain, and I don’t really agree with your idea of school being a good place to spend your life. Do you think school gets you ready for your real life, once you get out? Nonsense! It’s your parents who are supposed to educate you; school is just the place to get knowledge.

You think school is for making friends? Associations and sports club, cafés, etc. are the places to meet and talk and have a real social life!

School is not an efficient means to acquire knowledge; the proof is that more and more pupils have to follow expensive private courses.

Schools are not all free! Some people can afford a private (i.e. a good) school; does this make for a fairer society?

In the PISA classification of 2009, France is 22^nd. It shows that in France, despite the greatest number of hours spent at school, foreign language learning is very poor and ability to speak and write in our own language correctly is far from satisfactory too.

School is still seen as the best or only way to get an education, but it is obviously not working... So, a big thank you to our teachers for their valiant efforts, but: down with school!

THBT We Should Wear a School Uniform!

Rémi is INSTIGATOR (he is FOR the motion)

As you know, in the UK the wearing of a school uniform is obligatory. For boys, it is usually grey or black trousers, a white shirt, a jacket, and black shoes. For girls, it’s the same except they have to wear skirts. Does that sound horrible? No, of course not, that’s how many people dress anyway! Let me say to you that I’m 100% in favor of wearing a uniform at school, and my opinion is shared by the majority of the pupils in this school! What a shame the wearing of a smart school uniform is not obligatory in France too…

A school uniform is a great leveler; what I mean is that it puts everyone on the same level. It wipes out social differences, and differences in wealth between people. Some kids wear Levis, even Armani, to show off how wealthy their families are. Other kids can't afford to dress like that. How rich or poor you are should not be important in a school, a place of learning. A uniform would be the answer to discrimination, mockery and bullying. A uniform shows that everyone in a school, whatever their parents’ situation, is part of the same group: the school. If we had a school uniform here, distinctions of wealth between pupils would no longer be made, which would be a great step forward for the better integration of everyone…

A uniform shows adults that you are a pupil, and it shows them, and the pupils from other schools, that you belong to a particular school. This is how it should be! You are what you are, and you should be proud of the fact. And what you are - a pupil - is who you are. You will be an adult soon enough and you can then wear all the fancy clothes you want to show what a great individual you are…

From a practical point of view, the uniform is great too. Spare a thought for our parents! One uniform is cheaper than having to buy us clothes for every day of the week. The US Department of Education makes sure that the average cost of uniforms for one whole year is no more than about $250 (€190). What is your yearly clothes allowance?! Plus, think about it, if you wore a uniform, your parents would no longer have to moan at you every morning: “you’re not going to school dressed like THAT I hope?!”

The US Department of Education carried out a survey on what introducing a uniform might bring to a school. To the question “from your point of view, would a uniform increase school pride and sense of community?” 80% of the teachers said “yes” and 40% of the parents too! I feel that teachers, parents, but also pupils of schools in France would also answer “yes” to the same question. A school uniform shows pupils they belong. Isn’t it important for you to feel that you belong? How many hours of your life do you spend here, at school? Isn’t it important to know that your presence is valued? If it is, then you would wear a uniform with pride because it represents the school which you are proud to belong to. And a uniform would represent the school which is proud to have you…

The same survey also shows that parents and teachers strongly agree on the fact that the uniform eliminates competition between pupils, and improves the learning environment. Great news for our teachers in Massillon, surely?! It would be great news for us too.

So, what are we waiting for?! With all these arguments in favor, I don't see what you can say against having a school uniform in Massillon; it’s a really positive initiative, it makes obvious sense… I would say it’s meaningful, even urgent. Vote in favor of having a school uniform at Massillon!

Jules is CONTENDER (he is AGAINST the motion)

OK, thanks Remy! You make introducing a school uniform at Massillon sound really positive. Unfortunately, you are being way too idealistic, and much too naïve. We are not in the UK, not in the US of A. This is Clermont, France. Today…

Can you imagine us walking around town in a silly-colored jacket and tie?! We would be laughed at! You talk about getting rid of inequalities and discrimination, but in this town we would be discriminated against because of our uniform! As a uniform shows what school you belong to, it also shows if you come from a privileged background or not. It would just make the rivalry between schools worse. And, unfortunately, a uniform simply doesn’t wipe out prejudice even within a school… Kids will simply find other means of denigrating each other!

You said having to wear a uniform would reduce the cost of one’s wardrobe. But a uniform is very expensive! Not everyone can afford to buy a new uniform or a good quality one. Some will have silk neckties whereas others will have cheap nylon ones. Also, people will show their individual personalities and even their wealth through things like jewelry or a fancy cell phone. So the uniform would just be a token gesture to us all being equal at school, it will not really hide the social differences.

Jealousy is not a cause of bullying. Kids are sometimes a bit jealous of those who wear fancy shoes or trendy clothes, but more often those who dare to have “style” are admired! It is not a way of showing how rich you are, it’s more a way of showing your personality, of showing that you are not like others. And it’s not just rich kids that wear nice clothes. In the UK, bullying happens if you dare to be different, to wear something that looks different, in other words if you go against the mentality that the wearing of a uniform imposes! The uniform is the cause of bullying!

The uniform is totally accepted in the United States and the UK; it is part of their way of life and of their teaching methods. In France, I don’t think that pupils would like these methods. They would go against our mentality. I have asked my classmates, and most of them feel it would be ridiculous to have a uniform. The uniform is a means to suppress an individual’s character. And that is anti-French! I couldn’t imagine having to be like everybody else, could you?

A school uniform goes against your freedom of expression because it is imposed; it does not allow you to show your personality to the world. Isn’t being a teenager all about finding out who you are and being able to assert your character through interaction with those around you? A uniform, in a way, stops you from growing up. Being lost in the anonymous crowd, you become passive, obedient, and conformist. You become obedient, you do not have to take responsibility for yourself or for others, and you do not have to get involved in what is happening around you. Do we want to instill a fascist mentality in this Nation’s youth?!

Why is a uniform imposed on prisoners? Having to wear a uniform is part of their punishment, a reminder that they have lost their right to freedom, a reminder of their status as prisoners under the authority of the prison guards. What sins have we, the pupils in Massillon, committed that we have to be punished by wearing a uniform!? Is our school a prison? Are our teachers prison guards? At least prisoners know why they are in prison. At least the rules of the prison are not arbitrary; prisoners understand why the rules exist. At least the prisoners know they might get out early for good behavior! We do not have a choice about being in school; let us not make it into a place of punishment, with rules we do not understand, sadistic teachers, or ugly, ridiculous, dehumanizing uniforms! (show extract of Pink Floyd’s The Wall).

A uniform that is imposed doesn’t make you the same as everyone else… it makes you into no one!


Marianne is for…

You seem to be saying that the wearing of a uniform is humiliating, that it is dehumanizing? I think you’re totally wrong, it’s the complete opposite!

The uniform is practical, essential indeed for some jobs. Also, it allows everybody to recognize someone’s function, what his rank is.

For the person wearing the uniform, it shows him he belongs, what he is and who he is. A person can be truly himself - feel valued - when he knows his place in society, don’t you think? A uniform is not about losing your personal identity, it is more about esprit de corps, being accepted as part of a group, and it signifies one’s hierarchical position in that group, one’s merits. Surely, that is particularly important in a school context, where young people need to feel they belong?

I like the uniform of Scout troops particularly; I think it is well adapted to the life style of children. It’s not ridiculous like a “Hogwarts” uniform! The fact that Scouts have badges on their uniforms is a good way of showing personal merits, what “good deeds” the Scout has carried out for others. It shows a uniform does not hinder individualism, on the contrary: it shows how valued an individual is by others. And, thanks to the uniform, the hierarchy within a group is clearly visible, which avoids the confusion of an “invisible” hierarchy, of not knowing who is who…

The soldiers who are fighting terrorists in Mali are proud to wear their uniforms, the doctors and nurses who take care of us are proud to wear their uniforms, all the courageous firefighters are proud to wear their uniforms… Why would the pupils studying in Massillon not be proud to wear a uniform!?

Guillaume is against…

Uniforms are only necessary in certain jobs. We can’t imagine a doctor, a policeman, a bank accountant, a coal miner, a priest, or a judge going to work without the appropriate clothes. It is fair to say that these clothes, uniforms if you like, are needed by those people to do their job. It is not unreasonable for companies to ask their employees to be well-dressed or to dress in the appropriate clothes needed to execute certain tasks, but I can’t agree with you when you say uniforms reinforce the feeling of belonging to a group. This feeling of belonging is only created when you are accepted in a group, and having to wear a uniform has little to do with that.

According to your logic, uniforms will resolve social problems. So more uniforms, fewer problems, right? OK, then, how about the Government imposing a uniform on the whole population because of all the erstwhile advantages you’ve listed? Uniforms are going to reinforce the feeling of belonging to the nation, right? But, would you really be happy living in a society in which everyone looks, acts, thinks the same? Think of Orwell’s 1984, think of North Korea. Do you honestly think a uniform will help people live together better? A uniform imposed by an all-controlling State would in fact create more problems than it would resolve. It would be the mark of a society based on suspicion, hate, and conformity. A totalitarian nightmare…

Nobody should be forced to wear something. As long as my clothes do not offend anyone, I should be able to wear anything I choose. That’s what is terrible about women having to wear the burka; it is, I believe, imposed on them and is part of a sectarian system that denies them their freedom of thought or movement.

Some people think a school uniform hides social disparities. They are right, it does try to hide them, but it cannot get rid of them! Hiding injustice does not resolve it. We need real change in society, not a society lying to itself by pretending we are all equal because we are all dressed the same!

Many people are afraid of the violence in our society. Some call for more authority, better discipline in schools, etc. Imposing uniforms on school children is part of their reactionary mind-set. But more violence does not solve violence. Wearing the same thing as other people cannot make one feel safer, it’s a ridiculous idea.

Some people’s obsession with uniforms only reflects their own insecurity. For them, uniforms symbolize respect for authority and discipline. But, a sense of security comes from people feeling good about themselves as individuals, because they have a good job, a happy family, and many friends…

Transition comment by Lola, the Chair:

The issue of school uniforms brings up the following important question: should people be dictated to? Doesn’t imposing a uniform amount to dictating to people their physical appearance and, in the end, their behavior? The real debate in fact is about the nature of authority in our society…

Nicolas is for…

We, as individuals, need to be controlled by a superior force and I'm going to tell you why. There are 66 million people in this country; how are we supposed to respect each other’s liberties without some kind of real authority? We need authority, a power that punishes those who do not respect the law... As the philosopher Spinoza said: “The State exists in order that people can live together without hostility.” And that's why we need authority; we can't live without it!

Chloé is against…

There is often abuse of authority. Sometimes, the State exercises authority not in the interest of all; it imprisons us in the kind of ideology that it wants us to follow. It prevents us from being free and making our own choices. It says it is a guide, but it is often like a dictator. We can't be free if all we do is follow the orders given from above. How can we be certain that these orders are fair or even good for us? Moreover, how can this authority be sure that its orders aren't harmful to us? We need to be able to make our own decisions because they concern us first and foremost.

Nicolas

Sure, we need to have a degree of freedom; let's take the example of everyone in this room: I'm sure that without the authority of our teachers and parents, we wouldn't have reached our level of knowledge and to be able to make an informed choice concerning our future. We can choose what higher education studies we would like to do, but only because of the wise council of our teachers and the benign authority of our parents…

Chloé

Maybe you're right, but don't forget that parents, teachers, and others aren't always without prejudice or even fair. We are afraid of making choices alone and that's why we are easily influenced. Nevertheless, letting an authority dictate our actions is a kind of cowardice; we need to accept the consequences of our own acts. We are lucky to have liberty, and as human beings we must be proud of that and be responsible because we are able to judge if one thing is good or not by ourselves.

Nicolas

It is in our nature to want someone lead us. People hate the unknown, they fear it. That's why Dostoyevsky, the Russian philosopher, said that there's one thing human beings prefer to liberty, and that’s slavery. Let's take an example: a couple of weeks ago, one of my teachers told me about a survey he had done in his class. He asked them: “What kind of jobs do you want to have when you grow up?” And do you know what they answered? Half of them said that they wanted to be civil servants and to work not far from their parents’ home! These people are obviously afraid of the unknown; being told what to do helps them feel safe…

Chloé

How pathetic: young people, thinking like retired people! Where’s their sense of adventure?!

Nicolas

But, Chloé, most people seek comfort, not adventure! Letting an authority figure decide what is in our best interests is not that bad if you think about it. Let's take China as an example: the Communist Party there has done wonders with the economy, making people wealthier and happier. Sure, the Chinese are not that free, but at least they are no longer starving.

Chloé

“If we are not free, life is hateful and death is salutary” said Etienne de la Boétie. The Chinese are living in a system based on fear, and who lives in fear does not know freedom. For Spinoza, the purpose of the State is not to alienate people, but to lead them to reason and freedom. Who holds authority should be determined by the citizens.

I think that wearing a uniform in Massillon should be the choice of the people concerned, that’s us, the pupils. We should be allowed to vote on the issue so that a uniform is not imposed on us but chosen by us, for the reasons we feel are good. I’m not against a uniform per se; I’m for being allowed to choose to wear one or not.

THBT Father Christmas Really Does Exist!

Roland Bouillot is INSTIGATOR (he is FOR the motion)

Hello everybody! Father Christmas really does exist! You believe in him, no matter how old you are, or where you come from!

Father Christmas is a familiar figure, but how much do we know about him? Santa Claus, as everyone knows, lives somewhere in the North Pole, and his job is giving lots of presents to all the children of the world every Christmas. He was first known as Saint Nicholas and he came from Asia Minor. He was a kind bishop with a white beard and a red coat who travelled around Europe on a donkey making miracles. The Dutch call Saint Nicholas Sinter Klaas, which gave us the American “Santa Claus”.

In 1863, Thomas Nast, a journalist for the American newspaper “Harper’s Illustrated Weekly” met Santa Claus for real, which is a rare privilege of course. Nast made an accurate drawing of him: an impressively tall, large man with a white beard wearing a red coat trimmed with white fur and a huge black belt with a gold buckle. Over the next thirty years Nast was allowed to draw Father Christmas on several occasions. In 1885, he even went to the North Pole to draw the house of Father Christmas and the busy factory run by elves where most of the toys are made.

In 1931, the Coca Cola Company hired Santa as an official representative of the brand, because of his nice red and white coat (red and white are the colors of the Coca Cola brand). Santa was pleased because he was allowed to drink as much soda as he wanted to and it gave him that extra energy to be able to finish his job on time.

Some people think Santa Claus is more popular than Jesus, but if this is true, it’s not Father Christmas’ fault; he just had the help of the Coca Cola advertising executives!

I don’t understand how you cannot believe Father Christmas exists! I mean, my cousin sent me this bonnet (show bonnet) he says he borrowed from one of the elves working in Father Christmas’ factory! Isn’t that the proof that there are people working for him?

And if that isn’t proof enough for you, check this out: here is overwhelming proof of his existence (show slide of myself and Father Christmas)!

Millions of people know Father Christmas exists; they surely cannot all be wrong! Nobody will be able to make me change my mind, and I would like the audience, if you agree with me, to say nice and loud and all together “Ho, ho, ho!”

Quentin Berthaud is CONTENDER (he is AGAINST the motion)

Santa Claus must not exist! Santa Claus is just an advertising gimmick for over-priced toys! Santa Claus promotes over-consumption! Santa Claus is guilty of the monstrous amounts of waste and pollution that result from so-called Christmas celebrations! Worse still: Santa Claus is a lie!

Kids are told that telling fibs is bad, and what do parents do? They try to make their kids believe that there’s a fat man, several hundreds of years old, who lives in the North Pole, who flies around with a bunch of reindeer and comes down millions of chimneys in just one night to give everyone presents… Why can’t he come through the front door like everybody else?! And why flying reindeer?! And why has he never been seen for real; what’s he got to hide!? And who is this guy anyway?!

Sorry to disappoint you folks, but Santa Claus was created by Coca-Cola to promote its fizzy drink! Santa Claus has little to do with the Christmas spirit, with sharing, generosity or charity. The advertising men who invented Santa Claus simply exploited the Christian tradition of giving presents to make people feel they have to buy more and more stuff...

To make their kids “happy”, parents have to buy them lots of things; in other words, Santa Claus is just another device to promote consumerism. Consumerism, according to Wikipedia, is “a social and economic order that encourages the purchase of goods and services in ever-greater amounts”. The Christmas period has become just that; it has gone from a religious family event about peace in the world to a stressful frenzy en famille of gluttony, jealousy and greed!

Santa Claus is a great symbol for the consumer society: overweight, unthinking, and who takes up too much space in our lives. The magic of Christmas is now the warmth and the lights of the shopping malls, enticing people in...

In the USA, Christmas is not enough, there’s also Black Friday and Thanksgiving too. During Thanksgiving 2011, 150 million people spent 15 billion dollars shopping. During December 2011, Americans spent something like 52 billion dollars! Crisis, what crisis? In France too things get over-the-top: 200,000 people go to the Paris Galleries Lafayette every day in December.

Christmas is also an ecological disaster. In France, six million Christmas trees are sold each year, including one million plastic ones. High-tech gadgets, mostly made in China, have become the new toys; their ecological impact is very high.

If Father Christmas really does exist, we would have to get rid of him, quick! We think he, like some pagan God, brings affluence and happiness; it’s not surprising that people are disappointed when they realize real life is not like the Christmas the shops promised it would be…

There is scientific evidence that Father Xmas does not exist: with 378 million presents to deliver to 91.8 million homes and 31 hours to do the work, Father Christmas and his reindeer would have to travel at 3,000 times the speed of sound; the reindeer would be vaporized within 0.00426 of a second and Santa would be killed by 4,315,000lb of force! Plus, need I remind you folks: humans and reindeer simply do not know how to fly!

Augustin Lafoy (AGAINST the motion)

If I hike across the North Pole, am I likely to meet Father Christmas, his wife, and Rudolph the reindeer too? No, of course not!

Santa Claus was invented to make Christmas more exciting for children but also because he is very useful to parents too… Parents emotionally blackmail their kids with the promise that if they’re extra good, an overweight man in a red suit will come with a sleigh-load of goodies as reward.

It is surely important to think about what we tell our kids… If Santa Claus rewards children for being good, then how is it that children in wealthy families have more gifts? Are they “better” children?

I think too much emphasis is put on presents and the real meaning of Christmas is forgotten. The (quantity of) gifts you give to your child for Christmas has become a measure of your affection, and this is sad… One or two presents should be enough, surely?

Also, why hide your affection by persuading them that it is a stranger who has brought them these gifts? Isn’t the parent-child relationship already complicated enough?! Your child is going to be grateful if you tell him or her that the gifts are from you.

Be worthy of the trust your children places in you; don’t lie to them by making them believe some fictional character really does exist! Sooner or later, the child will discover that Father Christmas does not exist and he is going to be very disappointed (in you). Isn’t life difficult for children to understand as it is? It could even be traumatizing for them to think their parents are untrustworthy… Rather than having to admit your guilt - you have lied for years to your own child! - simply never talk about Father Christmas as if he were a real person! You will avoid feeling ridiculous, or having your authority questioned, or your child’s trust in you shattered.

What kind of respect do we have for our children!? Believing in Father Christmas or the tooth fairy or whatever does not help our children understand and appreciate the world better, on the contrary, it just confuses them even more…

Refusing to believe in Santa Claus does not mean rejecting Christmas of course. So, let us get back to the true spirit of the festivities, for our children’s sake!

Aloïs Salgnac (FOR the motion)

Father Christmas is real, he is alive, he exists, I believe in him! And even if Father Christmas does not exist, well then, we would have to invent him! Why? Well, basically, because he’s a nice person! When we speak about him, everybody thinks about presents, parties, and happy moments with the family. Life can be difficult sometimes, so a bit of cheerfulness - ho, ho, ho! - can only be a good thing.

And parents do not lie to their children about his existence, because he does exist! And even if parents were guilty of a white lie, their children won’t blame them for wanting to make them happy!

And what is this humbug about Father Xmas being a symbol of excess?! He’s a symbol of kindness and generosity, not of consumerism! I do not understand why these people go crazy shopping at Xmas time; can’t they be content just with what Santa brings them down the chimney?! That way people everywhere would get the same amount of presents and there would be no unfairness. It’s not his fault if people go nuts at this time of year!

We cannot make children believe Father Xmas does not exist, that would be cruel. They are so excited on Christmas Eve, impatient for the surprises which will mysteriously appear under the tree during the night…

None of us here has ever seen him, I don’t think, but we know he is impressive, with a big white beard, but that he is very patient, kind and generous… We should have faith in his existence!

Louis Buyssens (AGAINST the motion)

“There are none so deaf as those who will not hear”, so I shall now only address the sensible people here present!

Some have said he exists, others that he definitely does not… “Father Xmas” is nonsensical codswallop; it’s even an immoral concept! If he does exist, we should get rid of him fast!

Some of you believe that Santa Claus is a universal blessing, the embodiment of kindness. But what is “kindness”? Father Christmas symbolizes a very Western notion of what is good. His attributes are very familiar to us: the wise beard, jolly red garments, a snow sleigh, etc. I’m not sure in Sub-Saharan Africa this fat old white man is understood as being “Mr Kind”...

You could say Father Christmas is a necessary mythological character, but even that sounds odd to me. Father Christmas does not have much to do with Saint Nicholas anymore! By making this Saint into a symbol for the whole world, adaptable to every culture, we’ve  kind of sold his soul; he is no longer a Saint, but has become an instrument of the rife consumerism of globalized capitalism! Santa Claus is an American imperialist! As such, he has no legitimacy as a symbol of goodness for the whole world.

Just imagine for a moment if he were real, what would happen? He would encourage the consumption of mostly useless things (toys and such) everywhere he went, in the name of “good” and “joy”… To me, a gift is far more precious when offered freely, for no particular reason. If we need a pretext to give things, do we need pretexts to be nice?

And if Santa Claus offers things only to nice people, how can you be 100% sure they are not acting nice only to receive gifts? Do we want to be nice on the odd occasion or nice all the time? Is being nice only a means to get something in return?

Father Xmas actually wants us to consume “religiously”. That’s what it is all about: religion and manipulation. Who, precisely, are Santa’s target customers? Children! Santa is sick! This pervert assaults our kids and exploits their weakness to make his sect thrive! He wants us to believe in him from the earliest age, because “believing is beautiful”. And this man is said to bring genuine happiness! Note how he has the complete guru gear: a beard, a creepy costume, obscure symbols, etc.

Dreams and believing in something are hugely important for children’s proper development, but Father Christmas is a symbol of unhealthy materialism. We should tell kids the truth; Father Xmas does not exist, thank God!

The EU Should Intervene in the Conflict in Syria

Lola ROY is FOR

Syria has not had a democratic election since the advent of the Ba'athist dictatorship in 1963. Hafez Al Assad, Bashar's father, obtained power after a coup in 1970. He was President until his death in 2000. Then Bashar al-Assad was elected. The regime liberalized timidly, it was the "Damascus Spring", and then this new president definitively put an end to the liberal movement. As a result, from March 2011, a wave of unprecedented popular social and political protest started taking place against the Ba’athist regime.

Since Friday 18th March 2011, demonstrations of thousands of people have taken place in Damascus, Homs, Banias and especially in Deraa, several buildings (the headquarters of the Ba’ath Party, the courts, etc.) having been burned down. Bashar al-Assad and his collaborators ordered the repression of the demonstrations, leaving hundreds dead and thousands wounded, both military and civilian (rebels or not). The protest movement has evolved into an armed revolution…

Alexandre MARTIN SAINT LEON is FOR

Indeed, the syrian conflict has already killed more than 40,000 people in only 20 months. The organization Human Rights Watch reports many cases of torture; it has the testimonies of more than two hundred people…

Hossam is 13. He has been captured by the Syrian forces and imprisoned. He has said to HRW : ''They put electric pliers on my belly. I fainted. When they questioned me a second time, they beat me and electrocuted me again. The third time, they had pliers with which they snatched off my toenails. They told me ''remember, we arrest adults and children and we kill them all.'' This is the situation that many children have already endured. It's our role to do everything  to stop  these genocides and atrocities. The UN denounces the torture of children and points in particular to the Syrian army which uses children as human shields. The torture is becoming a usual thing in this war, even the rebels use it. Many governments, including the Qatari government, denounce the genocide by the Syrian government. Bachar al-Assad doesn't even respect his own ceasefire commitments. We can't let these men, women and children be murdered by Bachar al-Assad who doesn't care about his people. It's our duty to stop these slaughters . It's true that it's very risky, but we can help the rebels through technical and logistical support, maritime blockades and air attacks... We can also bring humanitarian support creating safe zones, no-fly zones or humanitarian corridors.

Alexia DE RECHAPT is AGAINST

The main problem of an intervention in Syria would be consequences... It could bring a regional and international escalation. Russia and China do not agree and have put their veto on any intervention at the United Nations Security Council.

Also, Europe cannot afford a military intervention: France's military budget, for example, has decreased from 3% to 1,5% of GDP. There is also a lack of strategy and of training! To win a battle against Assad, we would need the help of America

Also, it is up to the people get rid of their tyrant, not us!

The instability of the country is due to the religious situation of Syria, not just the political situation, in other words, this civil war is due to ethnic and religious divisions that cannot be “solved” by a military intervention.

The differences between all the religions and minorities but also the different armed forces involved make the situation hard to understand. The population is divided into two principal religions:  Islam and Christianity. Muslims are subdivided in two principal branches: the Sunnites (73%) and the Alawites Shiites (14%) who are running the country (Assad is Alawite). The Christians represent 12% of the population. All these communities have an important role in the conflict. Moreover the different armed forces are the Government army, the Free Syrian Army and the radical Islamists who are divided into two groups: the first one allied with the Muslim Brothers and the other one with the Jihadists. It is easy to imagine that such a diversity is a factor of instability in Syria…

Benédicte DE LA GRAVIERE is FOR

The government is violent but there are also radical Islamists who make the situation complex. If we don’t intervene, these pitiless groups will take power, they may get the chemical weapons and the conflict will spread over the neighbouring countries. Due to powerful weapons and the Sharia they can change the lives of millions. We need to avoid what happened in Mali in March this year: Jihadist groups representing less than one percent of the population very rapidly succeeded in taking over control of the whole country. Our role is to oppose the bloodshed in Syria ! We, the EU, have to avoid the situation getting worse. Since the beginning of the conflict we have said that “it is up to the people of Syria to work it out for themselves”, but after one year and eight months of this conflict, we have to admit that the situation has not improved. Moreover, with the rise of the Jihadists, minorities like the Christians or the Kurds are threatened. 90% of Christians who live in Homs have been expelled. Feeling sorry for these people is not enough. We have to intervene militarily to bring back peace. May I remind you that if the Islamists came from Lybia or Tunisia it was, at the beginning, to help the opposition who had not received any help from the EU, or the USA or the UN. Now, they are taking advantage of the chaotic situation our non-intervention has caused. Last year, they were about 2000 Islamist soldiers, today there are at least 10,000 ! All of them have refused to recognize the Syrian National Coalition (which is made up of the different opposition groups) and want Syria to become an Islamist country. We must react before they take control of all the territory! Our role is to encourage the SNC which is, in case of an intervention, ready to take the power with a provisional government, in order to avoid an even more unstable situation or things will become like in Lybia.

Loic GEELHAND is AGAINST

But the problem is, if we want to intervene in the Syrian conflict, are we talking about the Government or Jihadist forces? Because if the UE intervenes against the Government, it’s going to favour the Islamists and if, on the contrary, the UE intervenes against the Jihadist forces, it’s going to benefit the Syrian government… So finally it’s the same result. You also said that they are powerful, so logically that means that they are powerful enough to fight against European forces, we could lose soldiers… It isn’t the responsibility of the European Union! The problem is if we help the rebels with weapons, there is also a risk of arming members of the Jihadist movement, and therefore it’s just going to give them more power.

Moreover, the danger to minorities is also a very important point. One of the keys to solving Syria’s conflict is to understand its ethnic and religious complexity. In fact, the conflict is based on ethnic and religious considerations, which will continue with or without Assad…

Syria is made up of many ethnic and religious groups. The vast majority of the Alawites are now convinced that if they lose power there will be reprisals, and they will suffer as a community, after decades of abuse and despotic power. This feeling is also shared by other communities; there is already hostility between some communities. Even if Bashar al-Assad were to leave, will the Syrian National Coalition be strong enough to keep the communities from fighting each other? If we intervene, the situation is not going to change.

Some Armed Islamist groups came to Syria to fight against Bashar al-Assad, but it’s also for religious reasons. They are also there to impose the Sharia on the country just like in Mali. In fact, these groups announced their rejection of the Syrian National Coalition and voted for an Islamic state. The armed groups are going to be a real problem. I agree that the UE should intervene, but only for two reasons: if al-Assad leaves power, and if the coalition stays strong and the different communities and religions stay united (and I don’t think it’s possible because there are too many differences between the communities, and a thirst for revenge…). Moreover, Assad is still in power, and so by the time he leaves power, the Jihadist forces are going to be too powerful because more and more are going every day to Syria to fight. It seems too late…

Lola ROY is FOR

But how can we really say that it is too late when a dictator introduce fear and an intolerable regime in his country and sparked off a civil war ? Furthermore, the European Union has its own foreign policy and security, which enables it to speak and act with one voice on the world stage. It has already sent peacekeeping missions to several regions of the world affected by conflict.  In the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), it uses military forces provided by the Member States to take the following actions: joint disarmament operations, humanitarian missions and evacuation, consultancy and assistance in military matters, missions for prevention of conflicts and peacekeeping, tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including missions to restore peace and stability, and operations at the end of the conflict. Over the last decade, the EU has launched 23 civilian missions and military operations on three continents.

In addition, the EU and Syria are both part of the Euromed partnership. The objectives of this partnership are to build together a space of peace, security and shared prosperity in the Mediterranean basin.

Finally, the vetoes are not legitimate since Russia and China obviously have put their own interests above those of the Syrian people. Russia and China are virtual dictatorships and do not want the revolutionary wave of the Arab Spring to spread to their territories. Besides, Europe could put pressure on these two powers so they think more about the situation. In fact, the EU could try to negotiate with these countries in an efficient way so that the UN could be united and stop the war in Syria. Legally, the EU could also try to have an impact on Syrian politics by sending, for example, diplomats for negotiations to reach an agreement on peacekeeping. The EU could also collect donations from the European populations to financially help the wounded civilians and families without homes. Also, it should find a way to protect at least the children from being hurt by creating more refugee camps. To conclude, despite all the difficulties that the European Union may face, it is now a real duty to act.

Amandine GOTER is AGAINST

Syria is situated next to Turkey, Iraq and Lebanon. An intensification of the fights because of a European intervention and the fact that Syria is a central player in the Arab world would provoke a regional escalation of the conflict, particularly in Lebanon or even Turkey because of the long common border.

China and Russia have veto rights, like it or not. Russia refuses an intervention because it provides Assad’s army with weapons and it brings a lot of money to the Russian government, and the only Russian military base in the Mediterranean is in Syria. China wants to preserve its relationship with Russia and refuses any intervention.

Finally, the European Union has been affected by the crisis of the sovereign debts since 2008. So, it must help its countries and reduce its debt. That’s why it can invest a lot of money in this conflict. Besides, Europeans are not the world’s policeman!

Conclusion by Loic and Lola :

Due to the complexity of this conflict, it is really difficult to know what to do because there are implications both positive than negative, and opinion is very divided. For the moment, no one has decided to intervene militarily, but there are ways for you to express your opinion at the European level with petitions and support for various organizations.

Vote: the motion that the EU should intervene was carried by a small majority.

THBT Same-sex Marriage and Adoption Should Be Allowed by Law in France

Marianne is INSTIGATOR (she is FOR the motion)

Our debate is about homosexual marriage, but it is also about what allowing same-sex marriage is related to, which is allowing adoption and parenting by same-sex couples.

As regards the question of allowing gay couples to get married, it is virtually decided in France, as 65% of the population is for. Homosexuals are already allowed civil unions, and the polls show that French people don’t have anything against a real marriage for gays, especially as marriage is losing importance anyway... Same-sex couples are simply asking to have the same rights as heterosexual couples (civil unions already impose the same duties).

I think the controversy is more about adoption and parenting by same-sex couples; the main reason why people are against same-sex marriage is because they do not want gay couples to be allowed to become parents.

I am going to explain why gay couple should be allowed to adopt kids.

First of all, studies have been made on children raised by same-sex parents and the results show that those kids appear to have no more mental or development problems than kids adopted by heterosexual couples or by single parents.

Secondly, there is the issue of the lack of a male or a female presence for a child adopted by a gay couple; according to some people, this could cause a problem of identification. Surely, it is important to keep in mind that the kid won’t spend all his childhood only with his adopted parents. He or she will see his grandparents, uncles, aunts, the teachers at school or even the baby-sitter who could be chosen from the other gender on purpose. Moreover, in same-sex couples, one parent will always tend to adopt the traditional role of the “mother” and the other the role of the “father”. In this way, kids won’t have any particular problems identifying with one or other of the genders.

Thirdly, what about possible discrimination at school against kids adopted by gay couples? Mentalities are changing for the better thanks to the efforts of the media and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transsexual (LGBT) community itself. There is less homophobia today, so children should not suffer from being mocked at school too much, not in the long term at least.

My fourth point is: adoption by same-sex couples is allowed in many countries including the UK, Spain and some States of the USA. Do you really think they took the decision to allow adoption by same-sex couples without thinking thoroughly about it first? Of course not!

If you think about it, people used to have the same prejudices about divorce, there was a lot of debate about that too, and now we don’t see anyone having problems about it anymore. I am convinced that we are going in the same direction as regards same-sex marriage and adoption.

Thibaud is CONTENDER (he is AGAINST the motion)

Gay marriage is totally absurd!

Marianne thinks people are against gay marriage because of the adoption issue. It is an argument (just imagine Mother's Day or Father's Day celebrations!) but it is not the only argument against gay marriage... Look at the definition of marriage. Marriage has always described the union of a man and a woman, the aim of which is to procreate and raise children. Same-sex marriage does not comply with this definition. An M6 survey shows that 57% of the French are against it. Marriage is a tradition which can’t be transformed.

Homosexuals already have the "pacs" civil union and thus the same rights as heterosexuals. So why do they need to get married?! They are already accepted in society and allowing them marriage status can only upset society... Why not also allow polygamy whilst we are about it?!

I do not think children adopted by homosexual couples will learn about the opposite gender through the presence of family or friends. Do we live with our uncles our grandmothers or our babysitter?! They will spend most of their time with people of only one gender and, study or no study, it will obviously have an impact on their minds...

Love between two people of the same sex and their desire to start a family, even if sincere, is not sufficient to allow them to get married and certainly not to have the right to adopt.  From a legal point of view, marriage is not about feelings or a desire for social recognition. It is exclusively a legal framework to guarantee a stable environment for the child. This is why marriage bans incest for example. We are not talking about the right to have a child, which is about what the adults want, but about the rights of the child. The fundamental right of the child to have a father and mother must be guaranteed. This right is, in the end, in everyone's interest.

Laurie is FOR

You stated that the main aim of marriage is to procreate and bring up children, but should we forbid sterile people or couples that just don't want to have children from getting married? I think marriage is not just about having kids, it is essentially a private matter between two people, regardless of their gender, who love each other and want their union to be recognized and legal.

The M6 poll is just numbers thrown about without any details; what kind of people answered it? Was it young or old people? You can't say that the majority of French people are against homosexual marriage based on this, especially when there has been a recent poll, carried out by the French Institute of Public Opinion, which stated that 65% where in fact in favor. It shows that mentalities are changing. Homosexuals are now seen as a legitimate part of the population, with laws to defend their rights (like the anti-homophobia law adopted in France in 2004). Homosexual couples are depicted in popular TV shows like Plus Belle La Vie. Grey's Anatomy and Modern Family even show gay couples raising children.

Unlike what you said, the “PACS” civil union is not the same as marriage. For example, in the PACS, if one of the partners dies, the other can't inherit. But, it's not just for the legal advantages that homosexuals want to get married; it is mostly because they want to be given the same consideration as straight couples.

The polygamist argument is not valid, because polygamy is totally different from same-sex marriage claims; there is no equality in a marriage involving three or more people. Equality is necessary in a union like marriage, so it would be impossible for polygamists to get married.

I agree with Marianne when she says that adopted children will not spend most of their time with people of the same gender. Thibault says that they will spend most of their time with their same-sex parents, which can be true during the first years, but then there is school, friends, other members of the family. I don't spend my entire time with my parents, I see other people. Children will, at a certain age, discover new things, new religions and ideas, make friends from different backgrounds and learn from this experience probably as much if not more than from his or her parents.

There are a lot of orphans and abandoned children in the world. Don't you think that it is also their right to have a loving family? And don't you think that they would not care if this family happened to be two men or two women?

Lucas is AGAINST

First, I'd like to thank our friend for sharing her point of view. Does she know that, in the Netherlands, same-sex marriage has been allowed since April 2001 but that only one in five Dutch gay couples actually do get married? Gay couples just don't want to get married apparently!

Nobody doubts the capacity of homosexual couples to raise children. And nobody pretends that so-called traditional families are necessarily more competent to raise children. But adoption should be by a couple as close as possible to the biological parents of the child to be adopted. Legalizing adoption by same-sex couples would mean that gender differences do not matter. We have to study all this from the children’s point of view. But they seem to be rather absent from this debate… Gender difference is an essential element of a child’s psychological construction allowing him to build his identity. Gender difference is one of the first limits the child encounters: “if I'm a boy, I can't be a girl, and if I'm a girl, I can't be a boy”. Putting into questioning gender difference would make children live in a world where everything goes: women can be “dads” and men can be “moms”…

I particularly want to insist on the necessity for a child to have a mom and a dad. A study carried out by researchers from Oxford University on 192 families from two maternity hospitals in Great-Britain has shown that interactions between the baby and the father in his very first years reduces behavior problems afterwards. Other studies have already shown that these interactions are very beneficial for the child, because he will be more confident and enterprising in the presence of a stranger. Moreover, it's obvious that parents’ behavior towards their children is gendered: a mom doesn't raise her child the same way as a dad would. A woman has a more sensitive approach based more on learning, while a man acts as the driving force and he shows the child how to take risks.

The love between two people of the same sex and their desire to start a family are not sufficient reasons to legalize their union and the right to adoption. I agree with Thibaud when he says that marriage isn't intended to promote the right to have a child, but the rights of the child.

Amandine is FOR

My dear Lucas, you don’t seem to be aware that people get married because they are in love! Not all gay couples want to get married (not all heterosexual couples either) but a lot of them are in love and will probably want to make their relationship official sooner or later. So why shouldn’t they be allowed to formalize things, just like heterosexual couples?

And, as you admitted, a gay couple could raise a child just as well as a heterosexual couple. What more can I say?!
Among young gays the suicide rate is particularly high, and one of the main reasons is the guilt they feel at not being able to feel part of a family. I think this is one more argument to allow same-sex parenting!

Concerning same-sex parenting and adoption, I agree with Laurie: we all know that a lot of children are orphans in different countries and they are just asking for love and affection. Do you think they prefer to stay alone, raised in terrifying conditions or wouldn’t they prefer to be loved by parents, even if they are of the same sex? I think the answer is clear for all of us, isn’t it? Moreover, a recent poll realized in August by the French Institute of Public Opinion (Ifop), has shown that 53% of the population support adoption by gay parents. So what are we waiting for?

Some people claim that an adopted child has a “right” to be welcomed into a “natural” family with a mom and a dad. However, it’s not a duty anymore. Parents, homosexual or heterosexual, have to be able to meet the needs of the child and to ensure his happiness. A child needs love and love has no gender! It is not because a child has been raised by a heterosexual couple that he will necessarily be happier than a child raised by a gay couple.

I also think that children living with a gay couple will be more open-minded about homosexuality than other children.

At last, I disagree with you, Lucas, when you say that a child needs a father and a mother to build his personality. Indeed, studies have shown that children raised by same-sex couples have no particular deficit and they do not show differences in development or psychological adjustment. And more importantly, they are not trying to imitate their parents as regards their sexuality.

Homosexuality is not transmitted by identification with the father or the mother. Otherwise, there would never be gays in heteronormative families…

People do not become homosexual; they simply are homosexual, which is sometimes as unsettling for them as for many of us. Depriving them of marriage and the possibility of adopting is a punishment they don’t deserve.

Victor is AGAINST

You said that people get married because they are in love, and I agree, I don’t contest the fact that two homosexuals can be in love. But civil marriage concerns first and foremost the legal field and not just matters of the heart. Marriage is a legal framework providing as stable an environment as possible for the growth of the child. Moreover, if it were a simple question of love, marriage would be redundant; couples can be in love without having to be married.

Gay couples cannot raise a child as well as heterosexual couples because the adopted children of same-sex couples will lack self-confidence and the understanding of gender differences.

I find that anyone who is against giving homosexuals equal rights is denounced as a homophobic, which is wrong.

You said that children living with a gay couple will be more open-minded about homosexuality; it’s possible in some cases. But in many other cases children will be more close-minded because they will feel like the victims of their parents’ choice. Children will suffer from discrimination.

The motion was carried by a small majority, there were many abstentions.