You are so good. Are you a good swimmer? Yes, she is. And you've got another voice here as well, Cassie. So you're a very good swimmer. I'm glad to hear. Now we need to catch up with a long time ago. So I hope this is the right one. If if we see Oh, we we recognize this will go away. Now, what do you have for the debate? Do you have that or was it too long ago? What do you need? So do you have a debate that you needed to prepare for or too too long ago? More land should be cated as national parks. So let's have a look. Yay. Okay. We got it right. Lovely. Okay. So this one is the correct one. And let's put this on the board. So Cassie, were you? Yes. Oh, no, you are a. Okay, I like this one. So because all about the environment. So Cassie is affirmative and we are doing well. Lunar is negative. Okay, so we're going to talk about if more land should be dedicated. So last time, a long time ago now, I think a month or more, we looked at, just before leaving the lesson, we looked at what is a National Park? So can you tell me, girls, what is a National Park? Yes. Cait's, a giant park. K, like it has grass, trees and a lot of places, or sometimes it has a pond. Very good. Yes. So it's a giant park park with trees, lots of grass fields, sometimes pond, sometimes a mini lake. And it's there to keep nature, to make nature grow in a natural way. So it's therefore for all the birds, for sometimes even butterflies, things like that. Yes. Cassie ops, Oh, okay, you're just accidental wave there. So birds, the trees, the plants, the flowers, the little rabbits, we have national parks that have deers and badges and things like that. So it's there for nature to grow and nature to be nature without humans destroying it. So we've got here our argument, but we are going to have a look at what today's lesson is all about. So we're going to look at something called a big fallacy. So this lesson is looking at bad arguments. How do you rebut a bad argument and how do you recognize a bad argument? So first of all, there are sometimes arguments that sound really good, but actually they're not. Logical fallacy is what we call this. So somebody might sound very, very convincing, and they might sound really on top of things, but actually, when you really listen, they don't really know. So correlation. So we're going to do correlation, causation, one thing following another. So I'll give an example here. If we plant more trees. More birds will make nests because they've got the trees. So this is one thing following another. We've got more trees, makes more birds, because birds settle in the trees. So you've got one thing and then another thing. This thing is following number one. The first thing we do, we plant the trees, the second the birds appear. So that is correlation. And then you've got causation, one thing causing another. This is very appropriate because this is what I've been studying at University. So correlation. Is this one so that is, let's put, equals correlation causation. One thing causes another. So let's say planting. Dropping. Litter oops. Into the ocean makes. Yes, Cassie exactly causes fish to become unwell or die. Very good. So that is causation. If you do this, you are causing something to happen, causation. So the first thing is they drop the litter into the ocean. This does not follow this. They come unwell or die. It causes this because this one above is one thing happens, another thing follows, one thing happens. This does not always follow, but it does cause them to die if they do do this. So causation to one thing causing another, don't worry too much about this. We're gonna to go into it more and more. And if you say two things are the same, so I then say, okay, so. Trees litter equals dead fish. Why is that wrong? This one litequals dead fish. It might be little equals bad environment. Yes, exactly. Litter can have lots of problems, not only the ocean, not only the dead fish. There are lots of things. So it would be litter has maybe, like you said, the bad environment it could have causing things to happen on the street, causing things to happen with cars, causing things to happen with plants. So not only dead fish. So you can't just say one thing is coming from that, that litter equals dead fish. Okay? So the fact that a is followed by or happens at the same time as b does not prove that b is caused by a. It's confusing. Don't worry. I promise you, don't worry because this will become, this will make more sense when we have the debates. So let's have a look at this here. Let's start with Luna today. Luna, can you read this? The best math test you got 1%. 90% your best ever we should. He also wore red Scotts. That day you have got another math test tomorrow. What should you do? Okay, so we are not gonna answer that yet. We're gonna see sir Cassie, what would you do? Would you wear red socks or do revision? Do. Reyes, exactly. So you don't want to equate. You don't say red socks equals high results in my exam. Red Sox equals, Oh, why is that White? Equals exam success? No, that is not a good argument because it may be just lucky you wore red socks that day and those were the the socks that were available to you. And you happen to study hard and get good results. So do revision is the answer, and Red Sox is not the answer. So do you know people who do things like this? Do they wear special things? Do they bring good luck things to exams? Yes, yes, what do they do, Luna? We bring a necklace, but we are having a test. Yes, lots of people do do things like this and believe it maybe brings them luyes. Cassie, like we have exams before exams, so they use different pants. And when a pen, when you use a pen and you got 100 and the big exam you'll use the a pen. That's right. Yes, exactly. So they say, okay, in the practice exams, this pen got me 100, but actually it's their revision. It's the revision and their effort that they put into it. So this one, this house would ban violent computer games. What does violent mean? Either of you? Anybody know what that means? Violence means yes, Luna, lucky, not lucky. No, it means it's a bad and negative word, and it means fighting blood pain, things like that. So fighting blood pain, if you say somebody is very violent, they are someone who fights, someone who causes pain, someone who hits out things like that. So physical violence is actually using your body to hurt someone or hurt someone else. So hurting people. And lots of computer games show these kind of things. So lots of computer games show fighting and show people getting even only computer people, but they show them getting hurt. So this says this house would ban violent computer games. First of all, let's go to Cassie. Do you agree or disagree? I agree and disagree. Aha. Tell me your reasons. Because if I disagree, many people play this and maybe they can learn something from it. Maybe they want to keep our world safe so they can learn from it. Very good. Maybe they are playing it because they think, okay, we need to protect ourselves against bad people in the world, and this will teach us how to protect ourselves. Yes. And how about you, Luna? Do you think these games should be banned or not? Cassie, I didn't ask your other side, did I? I'll come back and ask your other side. Yes, Luna. I didn't have ideas, don't have. Okay. So Cassie, do you add another side to this? On the other hand, I agree, because maybe people will think that it's fun to hurt others. That's right. They might think that they can copy what's on the game. So only a game, only pretend made up people, computer people. But they might think, this is really fun. I'm gonna to try it in real life and I'm going to try hurting someone in real life. So yes, yes, hurting someone is not good. Exactly, exactly. So but it does happen a lot on the video games, doesn't it? So they they get hurt in really violent ways. So that is something that some parents think is very bad, some parents think is only a game. So they're just you know they're just maybe practicing, maybe releasing their anger about life. So yes, it's a difficult one. Now let's see what this person says here. So I'll read this. Violent computer games have never been more popular. At the same time, levels of knife crime amongst Young people have never been higher. We need to ban these games now to keep our children safe. What do you think is knife crime? Someone who takes a knife and makes another person dead. That's right. Yes. So he said, this is happening in the world. Some people are killing each other with knives. He also says the violent video games are very popular. So he is making a connection. Now let's see what they say. This is not a great argument. Why do you think this is not a great argument? Yes, Cassie. Maybe it just, it's something like a bit like lucky. That's right. Yes, it's not always connected. Maybe these children who did this, Young people who did this, maybe they've never played video games, maybe they are just violent. Maybe some people who play violent video games all the time have never been violent. So there isn't necessarily a connection. So he said there is a connection, but we don't know if they even watthe video games. So it's a bad argument in that. So to rebut this, you can call it a logical fallacy. So let's have Cassie. Can you read this, what this girl says? Horlife crime is you have not provided any evidence that it is connected with the use of violent computer games. Good. So you may be able to do this, but you need to research. You might be able to find a connection, but you need to do your research and find out what people have studied the connection between the two, okay? Or you can turn the connection between the two factors so that it works in your favor. So you could say, mthere's no connection is what she's saying in the first one. You didn't give me any evidence that there's no connection between these two things. Or you could say, actually, let's see, we'll do the opposite argument. So can you read this one, Luna? Millions of Young people play violent computer games every day, and only a tiny minority. Engage in acts of violence. It is surely. Evidence that playing these games is homeless. Very good. So these games are very popular. Millions and millions and millions of people play them and not millions and millions of people are murderers, not millions and millions of people are murdering people in the street or doing violent things. So she says, okay, I'm gonna to show you the opposite argument. We know that lots of people play these games and lots of people are not murderers. So she turned it around. She turned the argument around. Okay, so now what are the names of your high school exams in your schools? Do you call them or do you not know yet? Not yet. No. Too Young? No. Okay. So there's different names for different high school exams. These are the very last exams you do before you leave school and you go to University, or you might take a job, but before you do that, you will take your final exam. Some people call them the final exams. And we in the uk, we call them gcscthese, are the name of the exams all the uk children take. Sometimes the gcsc's, they are taken in China, in other countries also. So it's an international exam. So this one is your final exam before you leave school. This one says this house would abolish gcses or the final exams. We don't need the final exams. They say we will ban them. Do you think that's a good idea? Luna? First to ban the final exam. Tell me. Because we need the final exams. The people who got point, we'll go to a better school. But we if we don't have final exams, we can go to every school. Yes, it would be a bit of a mess, wouldn't it? You wouldn't know who can who can do what job, who can do, who can go to what University. Yes, Cassie. For example, if I'm a person and I got the bad mark, maybe if I am lazy in class and I didn't have the exams, then I went to a very school that is very good, but I will still be lazy. Yes. Yes, exactly. And maybe you take the place of someone who is not lazy. And that doesn't seem very fair, does it? Somebody who got good results. So it it seems a little unfair now some people say we don't need exams. You can just look at the children's work in the school for five years. You are in high school. You can look at all their work for five years and see what they did. And then you can decide, do you think that's a better idea? Yes, maybe yes, okay. And because some people, maybe it's sick so they don't get the final exams, that's yes. And some people are better in class than exams. Some people don't perform well under pressure, which means the pressure, it scares them, but they are usually very, very good in class and the pressure of the exam scares them. And then maybe they don't have such good results, but they are a very good student. Sometimes exams don't make the best results. But so as we know, sometimes I've had this before, maybe you've had this before, you know that you understand all these things. You know you're very good at these things. And then when you do the exam, Oh no, my result. And that's because the pressure makes people a little bit scared. And when we're scared, our head goes foggy like that. So some people say that's a reason not to have exams. So did you want to say something, Cassie? Did you have your hand up earlier? The same. The same. Yes. Okay. So let's see what this person has said. Can you read this one, Cassie? If we abolish dcstudents, and yes, ten and eleven who have no motivation to study, as a result, they will pay no attention and cause no one will learn anything, and students will leave school without basic literacy and numeracy schools, they will not be able to find work and will have no choice but to turn to crime and the murder rate will go up. Good. So his argument, so literacy and numeracy is another word for English and maths, writing and mathematics. So he said, if we don't have any exams, the murder rate will go up because these children will become criminals and become murderers. Why is that a bad argument? A murderer, by the way, if you're not sure, is someone who's a killer. So they say these people will become criminals, criminals is someone put in prison, in jail, so they go to prison and jail. And he says these people who don't take the exams, they will become criminals and killers because they don't have any job. Yes, Cassie. It's not because in our lives, some people can't have the money to go to class. So it equals than without without basic, but they can still have jobs. That's right. Yes, absolutely. Yes, absolutely. There's still jobs available. All these people that maybe didn't take the high school exams for some reason, they're not all becoming killers, are they? So like you say, they're otherwise we will have millions of killers and criminals. So like you said, you can you can do other things, other skills. Okay, so let's move ahead. So that is a bad argument. It's a slippery slope. It posits an inevitable progression towards an extreme consequence, but an action. So it's saying that's too extreme. You can't say because people didn't do the exam, they will become killers. It's too extreme. It's too over the top, it's too big. So you need to prove it. If it's inevitable, even likely, is it even likely? If it's a bad argument that will always be made by the opposition and it's very easy to argue against them, you can say, I recognize that this is a logical fallacy. Okay, so we are going to now try to make a good argument. The house would abolish gcsc's and public exams. So this girl has a good argument, quite a long one. So we'll do a little bit each. Cassie, can you read from here to here? Some students may temporarily lose some motivation in the absence of public exams. The great majority will still see that it is not in their interests to disengage from school. Good. So what she's saying in this part, they they will, okay? Even without the exams, most children will still do the schoolwork because they know that it's going to be good for their lives. Okay. Can you read this bit here, Luna? It is actually more likely that students will be more motivate as lessons will be more interesting. And. In meeting once nesday once they no longer have to. Focus on boring. Titive during for exams, very good. You had a lot of a lot of long words in there. So boring repetitive exams. Now this girl is not necessarily right. We are not saying her argument is right, but she's making an argument for her side. So you might disagree and that's okay. But she's making a good argument for her side. So she might you might not agree, that's okay. You might agree, that's okay. But it's about making a good argument for your side. So she says actually children won't lose their ability to engage in class, to be in class actually without the exams. Maybe they will concentrate even better and they won't be so afraid. Okay. So going to our argument, the house believe more land should be dedicated as national parks. Now we've got a little bit of information on this. So it's good that we've had some time apart because we can recap a little bit. So we talked about what is a National Park, why might me and Luna, you're on the other side, why might we need this land? Side is we don't need this land for the park. Good. And why. Because many homeless need home and animals dislike parks. Open escape? Very good. Yes. So there are lots of people without homes. And that is animals do escape from the parks, and sometimes they get injured or sometimes they cause injury to people. So there's places in South Africa with national parks, and all the monkeys are escaping and causing trouble with lots of people. So different parks have different animals as well. So that is so one reason is we need this land for other things. There are too many people without homes. We have a lot of people now in the world and not enough land for everybody. Okay. And Cassie, one reason from your side. National parks are our greatest weapon against climate change. Very powerful, yes. So they are the greatest weapon against climate change. And National Park means lots of trees, which means lots of oxygen, which means lots of life, which means an ecosystem. So yes, this is and also people engaging with nature, maybe thinking, you know what, I don't want to hurt these animals. So there are very convincing arguments for this one on both sides. It's an interesting one because I don't know where exactly I stand. I think I'm bang in the middle. Okay, that one's for next week. So we will begin to look, we'll begin the arguments and we'll see if we can get a second round this time as well. So Cassie is going to begin. So Luna, remember, your job is to listen to Cassie and to try to rebook her. And yes, so you are now you're going to listen to Cassie and try to rebut her and try to think of ways that I can use my arguments and incorporate them into saying, actually, you're wrong. So we remember, let's see if we still remember. You need your introduction. So you're going to do all of the greeting, the audience, introducing yourself, which you're very good at, and Cassie is doing that. Then you need your main body, which is maybe usually four arguments. You can do less if you have good arguments. I know sometimes you both have two arguments and they're very good because you filled them out so well. So four arguments less is okay if you give a long detailed argument and then you're going to have your conclusion. Okay, so let's begin and we'll see where we stand after this. So we'll do four minutes. Are you ready, Cassie? Fantastic one, 23. Good evening, judges in audience. My name is Cassie. Today I will give three main points. One, national parks can save diby diversity from extinction. Two, national parks are our greatest weapon against climate change. And free national parks mean healthier people and stronger economies. Firstly, national parks can save animals. Let's take Yellowstone National park in the us, for example. They brought back the gray wolves for extinction, which allowed the willow and many other trees regrow. Then fevers came back and rivers were clean. Ed, again, it healed the entire ecosystem. Also, the W H, O warms that by 251000000 species will extinct. Do you think this means we can go on with chopping? Absolutely not. If we go on, 1 million species were really extinct. Secondly, we shows that each year in China, there were about 676000000 trees being cut down. An old groforest in a park take about ten to 20 tons of co two each year. It's like taking four to eight coff the road after after the 204Indian Asian ami villagers with impact mangrove parks stuered 80% less debate than those result, sadly. Let's talk about health in the world. There are three of us living in the city. National parks are a Green hospital for a minds and bodies. For example, if you get a bad mark, you will be uncomfortable. But when you go for a walk in the National Park and let your feet touch the ground, you free feel calm and relax. The Green is also good for our eyes. Every time of the cross, I will look out of the window for about five to ten minutes, because it's good for my eyes. The other side might say that people need places to live in, but most cities waste spaces on single family homes. With big yards, aty lots and underrusted buildings. We can build it taller, not wider. For example, in porland, it added 10000 homes and five, 1000 homes in five years, and no new land was tounow. Do you still think we need to take over national parks for buildings? We need to use the land we have smaller, on conclusion, national pomeans too. Let them could see wolves. Not just pictures, but but against climate change and families to stay healthy. Thanmotion sathank you for listening. Very good. Fantastic. So that time has done you very well. We've got lots of lovely research there. And you've really padded out your arguments with rhetorical questions. I can hear everything that you've learned. You've put in there. You've done your rhetorical questions. You've also heavily steered it towards, in a very clever way, your argument by using research, actual research. So I put this in a much less good way than you explained, Cassie, just so Luna can see some of the main arguments, but yours was much more detailed. So Luna, what she said was, let's pop this here. Oops. Okay, try again. So first of all, she's talking about promoting diversity. So we need diverse environments. Diverse means lots of different things. We need lots of different things from nature. We need trees, we need the rivers, we need the birds, we need certain animals to eat things that maybe are poisonous for us. We need to live alongside nature and national parks, make sure that we do all of those things because it promotes diversity, lots of different things. Then the second main reason was climate change. So you made a very good argument about the trees absorb or the co two, that there's too much co two and trees help to absorb that if we're cutting them down, the co two is just in the atmosphere. And that's very and then we also mentioned economy, which I thought was interesting as well, because with all of these things, this is gonna na eventually lose us money. Climate change is eventually going to lose us a lot of money. So then you used examples like the gray warves in Yellowstone Park were close to extinction. The rivers were bad. These things were corrected. They came back, which is amazing. Trees are needed. 666 million trees were cut down in China. So you need that those trees to take in all the co two. This will improve our health. Green hospitals, I like that that you said Green hospital, nice, very convincing. Their nice image. So sometimes better than real hospitals. That is very for a lot of people I know. When I spent time in hospital, I actually felt more ill because I'm around sick people. The lighting is bad. I can't sleep. I'm not eating very well. When you're out in nature, you can do all those things and you're not surrounded by other sick people. So you do need natural light. You need nature. And I like your idea of building things taller, not wider. China's very ahead with that because China's very famous for the tall buildings. We are not very ahead with that in the uk. We don't have many tall buildings. So it's a good idea. But are there downfalls? Could the tall buildings actually cause some problems? So let's listen to lunas rebutts and find out. I will be typing like I did with Cassie as well. Okay, let's put four minutes. Okay. Are you ready, Luna? Good girl. Oh, I can't hear you. Are you speaking, Luna? Cassie, can you speak? Yes, I can hear you. Yes. Okay, I can hear you now. Good. Okay, so let's go off we go. One, 23. Good evening, judges and audience. My name is Liona. I define that should not be dedicated as national parks. Our team is against this motion. Today, I will give two main points. Many homeless need home, and animals dislike parks often escape first, many people don't have homes. There are many people who are too poor to buy a home, so they can only sleep on the street. Ets, if there were more, if there were more places for them, they would have sheltters to survive. Un habitat says about 300 million people worldwide have no homes. For example, some sleep over a city street in places like New York or Mumbai. Also, around 2.8 billion people don't have good, healthy, like families in Kenya living in small clouded shocks. By the end of 20, 24, 83.4 million people had to leave their homes because of floods or wars, things. Millions of people don't have good places to live. I suggest we use land to build homes for the homeless, not parks. Second, animals can live in the world. There are already enough nature park in the world. Do you think animals like living in the nature parks? No, they don't. Lots of animals run out of it. For example, on June 24, 2025, two Brown bears ran out from a Daon wildlife park in the U K. They rent a honey shop and eat it weekly. Honey. After that, the park moved visitors away. 16 people, including kids, were locked in a playground. So in my point of view, nature parks may not always make animals feel comfortable. They might try to escape, which could even bring trouble to people. The other side might see, we need, we need National Park for clean air and plants, but still already enough parks, we can also plant more trees along the Streto, freshen the air. Moreover, we should encourage people to protect the environment, instead of using land to build more parks. In conclusion, many people need homes and animals and animals are not happy in national parks. And we have better ways to keep air clean. So our team says that should not be used for national parks. Therefore, the motion should not stand. Thank you. Very good. Just like very good, both of you. The time has done you very well. So just like Cassie, you've got some excellent research there to back up what you're saying and you've provided a very convincing counter argument. And it's not an easy one, is it? So I can imagine that you had to search quite hard for that information there. The number one reason, so Luna said the homeless need homes. You came up with some very good statistics. I didn't write them down, but you did support that with statistics and that you've got 2.8 billion don't have good housing, which is a good point. And actually, if we have all these people with bad housing and homeless, it's going to make the environment worse anyway. So because these people need to eat, these people either go to the toilet and they maybe will be doing that on the street, so that maybe makes the worse environment anyway. And you also put how many people are now leaving their homes because the weather is becoming worse and worse across the world. So we need areas that are safer for humans in its human rights to have a place to live. So very good, strong argument there. You also said about animals living in the wild. I didn't know this story about the Brown bears. So that is but I know that we do have some national parks where they've kept certain animals in. So yes, that's a funny, interesting story. But it also proves that actually this is not their natural environment. We're trying to recreate a natural environment which is not natural to the animals. So then we had the parks are already there. Good argument. So we already have the parks. So Luna's not saying get rid of all the parks. She's saying keep the parks that we already have and then do other things, plant trees along the streets to absorb the co two better ways than national parks to keep the air clean. It's a waste of time and money. So very good arguments there. So now you've got a rebut. So we're going to do a round two for this one. So Cassie, you're going to rebut the rebutts. I've got Luna's arguments there and you can you don't need to come up remember, when you're the third person, you don't need to come up with anything particularly new. You just look at Luna's arguments and you tie in your arguments that you already had and maybe say them in a different way. If you do have something new, fantastic. But that's okay. If not, okay. So are you ready to rebut, Cassie? So for your introduction, doesn't need to be so long this time, so you can say you can greet the audience. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. And then just say, I am now going to rebut. Speaker, too. Because we've already had your introduction. So that is let us know when you're ready, and we will go. Fantastic. Okay, one, 23. We'll do three minutes for this one. If you go over it, no problem. One, two, three. Hello everyone. I am now going to read speaker too. She said that people have many people don't have homes and they might need to leave their homes because of floods. That's but actually there's something very actually. In Australia, some people with some people who live outside had better bodies because they always go for the tranbut. So they have better bodies when they are something like, so when. They are germs to make you sick. They won't be sick, but we will be sick. And also, just like I said, we can build a toilet ler and not wider. Two. Animals. So right now that's about the bear. But when but think about the angles that are almost at sick. Do you want them back? We can get them. Let the parks get them back. After a while, they might have some numbers of, then we can let it back to the wild. He said that we can let people don't feel trash on the street. Some people won't listen because they are selfish. In conclusion, the thank you. Very good. You've actually come up with some new things there. Fantastic. So and I'm gonna to just finish writing what you've said here because I have something to say about something you said there. So some animals, we can breed them. And yes, what I was gonna to show you was we have actually done this in Scotland. So you mentioned breeding animals and then letting them back into the wild. We have done this in Scotland with a wild cat, a Scottish wilcat. I will show you a picture of the Scottish wildcat. They're very cute, but they're not friendly because they are wild. So but let's have a look here. There's one. And they used to be in Scotland everywhere, but they became extinct. And now if you see one, people become very excited because they, Oh, we saw a cat. We saw a wildcat. So I will get you a picture. There you go. They're small, but they are little, little mini tigers. They were bred in the national parks. And then when they had enough, they let them into the wild. And now they are living in the wild. And they are not the same as a pet cat. They need to be in the wild. They need to be in the wild hunting. So they did exactly what you said there, Cassie, but so that does happen. And then you also said about the homeless need at home. So you said your response to that was use the land to build homes for these people. Oh, sorry, I'm reading the wrong one. I'm reading lunas. Okay. I think the word you were looking for in your first argument was aborigines. So these, I know the study you're talking about, the aborigines are the people who are native to Australia, and they've have lived in Australia for many centuries. They actually are the Australians. And they live outside, they live in nature, they live in the bush. And they were observed because they have better immune systems. They can get over the flu much better than us. So they have better immune systems and they're able to cope with things more than people who live inside houses. So those are called aborigines. So very good. They're fantastic. Now, Luna, remember, you don't need to necessarily come up with anything new, just match. But if you do have anything new, perfect. So just match your arguments to rebut t. Cassie, a tough one. You've got a, you've got a difficult one now because you're rebuttting a rebutt of a rebut t, so are you ready, Luna? Wait a minute. And while you're preparing, this will be next weeks. We should eat less meat. So that will be next weeks. And we'll talk about who does what in a moment. Let us know when you're ready, Luna. Ready? Good girl. Okay, off you go. One, 23, that Cassie had said, we don't have to build house. Not wider, but some houses is really tall, it makes trouble and. But. And cassiy said. I can see where you're going, Luna. Think about the problems from having very tall buildings. Might go down, might go down. Yeah, they can go down. The problems from having very tall buildings also, you're blocking a lot of light. So the very tall buildings blocks light. And actually nature needs light. So you could be saying that we people down on the ground are getting it's very dark. And you know this, if you go into a city where there's very tall buildings, it's darker than when you're in the countryside. So there's that as well. Okay, keep going. What could be said? Yes. Be befor taller building. Yep. And what could be bad by doing what we did? There were some problems in Scotland when they bred the cats and then they led them in the wild, that there were some problems. What do you think? What problems could occur? Maybe when when they let the cat out again, they will come back and maybe they will make people like attack people. Yes, they were a bit frightening for children coming across them. They say, Oh, it's a cat. They want to stroke it. But this is not a cat you can stroke. It's a wild cat. So there were problems with people, and also some of them died. So they didn't survive in the wild very well because they had been. Now we have a changed ecosystem and there are cars on the road. So I think one of them got killed by a car. And people were very sad about this because they wanted the experiment to work. Some are still alive, but others did die. And so it it doesn't always work to release them into the wild, especially now we have so many people around and cars and things like this. So you had a tough one there, Luna, so I won't hold you to that. You had a very difficult one, rebuttting a rebutover rebutt but you had some things to work with. So we will work on that. Don't worry, we'll work on those final rebutts. Next week will be we should eat less meat. So this time you're going to say, yes, Luna, you're going to be affirmative. We should eat less meat. You can think of the environment, you can think of the animals, you can think of people's health. And Cassie, you're going to say no, so no, we should not eat less meat. Yes, we should eat less meat. Okay, so lovely to see you both again. It's been a long time and I will see you next time. No problem, bye bye.