Hello. Hi, Isabella. How are you? I'm fine. What did you do today? I want outside. I want to play with my friends. What did you play? We played in the store. In the store. Yeah. Did you go shopping? We play hide and seeinside. Was it fun? Yeah, well, I'm glad you had a good day, Isabella. So do you remember what we did last lesson? I. Can't. No worries. So just to refresh, we talked about the United Nations. So we talked about Model United Nations and the United Nations. Does that kind of stir up a memory? Yes. Yeah. So what do you remember about last item? And so what's the difference between United Nations and Model United Nations? United nation is. A real. Do the same thing to it. Who United? Yeah, exactly. Yeah, exactly. Isabella. So United Nations is the real things, is the real thing that happens in the real world to make real solutions and solve real problems. Model United Nations is a learning activity, is a learning group where typically students try to think in the same way that United nation leaders would think. So it's sort of prepping them or preparing them for the feature. So maybe if they want to be part of the United Nations when they're older or maybe they want to be involved in some sort of government or just working on their debate and skills. But Yeah, the United Nations, its main mission, its goal to help is to help with world peace, is to help countries reach solutions and address any problems. So that was last lesson, this lesson. Let me just go to the part in the worksheet. This lesson we're going to be learning about the big ideas. So what that means is we're gonna to be learning about different ways of seeing the world and how the clash between them is behind many debates. So again, think of there are so many different countries in the world, right? So there's so many different types of people with different opinions, different mindsets. And so if you're put on the same planet together, if you're put in the same space as obviously going to be some disagreement. So you're ready to start the lesson. Yes. Okay, cool. So. Agree or disagree. So think about. So do you think so? Do you agree or disagree that of course, people should be able to hire whomever they want for a job? What is higher higher means to like let someone have something so to recruit them. So if you hire someone for a job, they get the job. What do you think about the first one, agree or disagree? They want, but we agree. Yeah. So people should be able to hire whoever they want for a job. Next one, of course, this one you disagree with, the second one. Oh, the third one, disagree. Okay. So first, the first one you disagree with, people should be able to hide whothey want. No, they should not. Second one, the government should provide free health care and education. Agree agree. Yeah p. Third one, anyone should be able to live in any country they want. Agree. Agree. So these are some. Examples of common issues that a lot of people. Agree or disagree with and they fight over it or they debate over it. So for example, a common one is the government should provide free health care and education. So in a lot of countries, so for example, in the uk, there is free health care and education, or at least the education some places is a lot cheaper. So I grew up in Singapore. In Singapore, education is very expensive, unless you're going to local schools. But international schools, it's very expensive. In England, if I had lived here, I would have been able to go to school for free or for a relatively cheap price. And healthcare as well. The healthcare is free. So the nhs provides free healthcare or free appointments and then maybe some meds, spa, or you have to pay for it. But on the whole, the uk is quite good in providing free health grtation. But in some places, like America, there's a crisis where healthcare is very expensive. So a lot of people don't have access to, for example, period products. So even things that happen monthly, right, a lot of people don't have access to period products. They are not always able to treat themselves if they have a condition. So there's that huge debate over whether countries the government be should provide for their people. So. When you think that something is an absolute truth, try to see the assumptions behind it. What does an absolute truth mean, Isabella? How very. Not. Yeah. So it's definitely very absolute truth is something that's extremely so when you think that something is an absolute truth, try to see the assumptions behind it. So we're going to try and look at the different assumptions behind the previous statements. Of course, people should be able to hire whomever they want for a job. The assumption. So first of you know, one assumption is Isabella. Things you can take. Yeah. So it's things that you already believe are without like really evidence or facts. So assumptions, I assume something, right? So if I assume something or I make an assumption, all that means is that I believe that's something to be. I think it's accepted as without proof. Does that make sense? So I'm going to write it down. So assumption is something accepted as without evidence. Could you write that down for me? Okay, well done this about that. So assumption is something that's accepted as without evidence. So the assumptions behind these statements are as follows. So first one, of course, people should be able to hire whomever they want for a job. You disagreed with this. So the assumption of this statement is that freedom to do what you want is more important than freedom from unfair treatment. So what this is saying is it's sort of leaving room for discrimination. So so what they're saying is freedom to do what you want is more important than freedom from unfair treatment. This means that your freedom to choose whoever you want is greater than trying to avoid unfair treatment. So this sort of lying, the underlying unspoken statement in this is that it sort of lets unfair treatment or discrimination happen. So do you know what discrimination is, Isabella? My dent pattern cylike scpt discrimination is similar to racism. Discrimination is just where you treat someone differently. Based on. Their gender. Their race, skin color, etc. So it's treating someone differently based on how they look or where they're from or who they are as a person. So for example, an underlying assumption, an underlying, an unspoken truth in this first statement could be that you could only hire men and not hire a woman because that's your freedom. But at that same time, that freedom allows unethical judgment to happen. Does that make sense? Yeah. So that's just another way of looking at it. Next statement, of course, the government should provide free healthcare and education. So you agree with this. So the assumption is that providing what is necessary in life is the responsibility of the state or the government and not the actual person. So that's the assumption of it. And then the last assumption for this statement is anybody should be allowed to live in any country they want, which you agreed with. The assumption is that diversity is a higher good than stability. So diversity is more important than stability. And again, this has two sides to it. Some people agree, some people disagree. And that's something that often happens in debates. So apologies. Okay. So could you read what's in red for me, Isabella? 这个idea的。The main issue which lie deep below the big motions Yeah so these big ideas are the ideas that a lot of different people either agree or disagree with that have to do with our world. So they're the fundamental issues. So they're the main issues which lie deep below debate motions that are involved in debate motions, right? They're a part of it. Even if you don't see it clearly, that's still a part of it. So if you can understand what big ideas are and how they work, you will see the motion in a new way and you will also be able to take control of the debate and steer it in a way that favours your side. So it's important to see the assumptions behind the statement so you know what the potential outcome is of agreeing or disagreeing with that statement. So for example, if we go back to the first one, so initially you might me personally, I disagree with the first one, but that's just because I know the potential for discrimination with this first statement. But if you just look at the statement itself, so people should be able to hide whoever they want for a job, you think, Yeah, that sounds correct. That sounds you know, you're are the hire you should be able to hire who you want. But the assumption shows that there is a potential for unfair treatment. So you have to look beyond the statement and try and see what the assumptions are or what the potential outcomes of that statement are. Does that make sense? What the potential essenoutcomes so outcomes so potential potential means sorry. What is the vasentence mean potential outcomes? Yes, potential means might happen and outcomes is like. Yeah, so outcomes can be can mean money. It's just that Oh, mic is not any type. Okay okay. Outcomes is just. The result I think the result. Or consequence of something. So could you write both of them down to me? I'm all done, is. About that. So. Yeah so do you understand what that means? Now, the potential is something that might happen. An outcome is the result or consequence of something. So potential outcomes is a result that might happen. So what I mean by this is unfair treatment might be a potential outcome if you agree with this statement, because it can mean that they can hire whomever they want, which means that they don't have to hire anyone else. They don't have to give people a fair chance. They can let their own personal opinions choose, make help them choose who they want. Does that make sense? 嗯，yes, 是的，好，摊手了。Well, that's cool, sir. Potential might let them choose. A better way to say that would be that the potential outcome is that they can not choose what the potential outcome can be, that they can not choose someone because of maybe this, maybe their gender. So the potential outcome is that they might only choose men because that's who they want to hire. That's who they want to choose for the job, which means that they don't have to hire a woman. Does that make sense? That's a potential outcome. Yeah. Or something that that could potentially happen. It might happen. Yeah. Yeah, okay. I know that's a bit tricky to understand but I'm trying to help you see the something behind the statement so your critical thinking skills improve. So again, you have to understand what big other days are, how they work, so you can see the motion in a new way and steer the debate or help the debate favour your side. So the debate can your side the ate by saying the debate favors your side. It's sort of like agreeing with your side. So freedom not freedom. Individual community, some things to be gaso freedom versus not freedom. So these are some big issues or big ideas that people think about. So what is freedom? Isabella, first off. You can do everything you want. It can go to anywhere you want to. Exactly. Very well done, Isabella. You can do anything you want, right? It's you choose what you want to do in your own life without anyone telling you what to do, without anyone pushing you to do something. It's your choice. So. Could you read this one for me? I' M1 thing, people's choice should be ated to protect him and others. The they accept that this means sacficing. Some. You both that this is worwhile sacice. In order to protect individuals and societies and art. At large large. So at large means as a whole. So what do you think this paragraph means, Isabella? Someone thinks. Some you. Bottom. Other love things and new things. You idea you were of him? Yeah. So what this is basically saying is it's sort of arguing that it's okay to have freedom, but it has to be regulated. So regulated means it has to be watched closely, because if anyone can do anything they want, that means that they can do legal things, they can do unfair things, they can do things that hurt other people or themselves. So it should be regulated or watched over to protect themselves and others. So you sacrifice some liberty. Liberty means the same thing as freedom. So you sacrifice some freedom, but it's worthwhile to sacrifice that to protect society as a whole and yourself. Does that make sense? Yes. So for example, just explain this in a bit more detail. With a legal system, right? So part of this includes having having a legal system or having punishments, right? So you're free to do whatever you want as long as it's not a legal right. That is that is people's freedom being regulated, right? And that's why people argue that having total freedom is dangerous because you could do absolutely anything so set you sacrifice some liberty so that can that if you do something that's wrong, if you do something that's legal, you are punished, you're put into jail. However, what's the benefit of having a legal system for yourself as abellla, besides not being able to do illegal things? You have more. How do you have more freedom? Isn't your freedom being taken away a tiny event? Oh yes, so another way you could think of it is say, for example, if anyone could do what they want, right? Maybe you just want to live your life in peace, right? You just want to do whatever you want. You want to stay at home, you want to go out with your friends, that's it. But someone else maybe living in the street across from you might be a murderer, might be a thief, right? And if there's no freedom, he can do whatever he wants. So what is the benefit in having a legal system that makes what he wants to do illegal? And if he does it, he gets to put to jail. How is it beneficial for you? You have more safety, exactly? Yes, exactly. Is ability protects you, right? So a lot of people believe that it's worthwhile or it's worth it to have that legal system, even if it means you can't, for example, rob a bank. It means that if other people are dangerous, you are protected from them. Does that make sense? Yeah could you read the second paragraph for me? Someone might read that freedom is above everything and it works better because people tend to make better choice when they have ownership of the those choice and the consequences. Exactly. So what is that saying, Isabella? About someone agrees. The大。Free, not free. 哈哈。的。Yeah, so what it's saying is the opposite of this. So it does not agree with this. What this is saying is that other people think that freedom is supposed to be the absolute. It's supposed to be what everyone should have no matter what, right? Because people tend to make better choices when you're able to control your own choices and consequences, when you have ownership over those choices and consequences. So some people believe, so this side believes that freedom should be regulated, because too much freedom can be a bad thing for yourself and society. However, that other people think that people should not be regulated as a person because they have the right to their own freedom. Which side do you agree with? 好。The right side, this side. Yes. Yeah how come? Because it's. Agree about freedom. Yeah and freedoms freedom's important, right? Yeah how does freedom make you feel, Isabella? Happy, enjoy. Lot. Doing. Yourself. Yeah. So overall freedom makes you feel better. So it's important to have Yeah. Yeah, okay, cool. So moving on. So this is an example. So talking about examples of freedom versus not freedom. So the situation is that government would impose or they would make a 20 miles per hour speed limit in cities. So Isabella, this is an example of. That is, putting a speed limit is an example of regulating people's freedom, because you're saying that they can't drive however fast they want. They have to strive under a certain limit. So these are what the different sides say. So the freedom side, could you read what the freedom side says? Isabella, so what freedom, people who believe in in absolute freedom, what do they believe in? Long that people drive safely, they should be allowed to drive up whatever speed is like. Freedom to do what you choice choose is a higher good than freedom from the. Abuse of this freedom, parking a low speed limit will make drivers angry and frustrated, and therefore likely to drive more dangerously, being now no freedom, worse than freedom. Yeah, so what is this saying, Isabella? Freedom can drive whatever speed they like. They're saying that as long as people drive safely, they should be allowed to drive at whatever speed they would they want, right? So freedom to do what you want to what you choose is more important than freedom freedom from the occasional wrongdoing of of driving too fast, for example, or driving too slow. And also, they say that having a low speed limit makes drivers angry and frustrated. So if you overregulate their freedom, so if you put two harsh boundaries or limits or limits into place, that will make them drive more dangerously because they're more frustrated, does that make sense? However, what does the opposed freedom size said? So people who agree, who I think that freedom should be regulated. Keeping the road safe and cities less populate polluted. Polluted. Yeah, well done. It's more important than letting drivers have their way. Freedom from the consequences of their other of other people's safe selfish choices is a higher good men freedom to make the those choice. But speed limit may encourage more people to give up their cars and walk or I cycle instead instead, which will make for a healthier and winner city drink. Being no freedom works better. Yeah. So what does the opposing freedom side say or the side that thinks that freedom should be regulated? And can help more people. Have a good身。Yeah. So what they agree with is that it's important to keep roads safe and cities that's bloated, because remember, if you drive faster, you use more of the gas, there's more pollution from the car, right? So those key ideas are more important and letting drivers have the ability to choose how fast they want. So freedom from the consequences of other people's selfish choices is better or more important, and freedom them to make those choices. So what is the danger with people being able to drive however fast they want? Exactly. There are risks of crashes, right? If you drive too fast, there's not only a risk that you're gonna to hurt yourself, but you can hurt others. There are many cases where people drive too fast on roads that have supposed to be 20 miles per hour, 30 miles per hour. So for example, these are known as school domes and school zones are where kids walk home from school. And if you imagine if someone's allowed to drive however fast they want and they drive too fast near a Kizone or a school zone, there's a risk of a kid to get run over. And that's that's not good, is it? That's something that could easily be avoided, or anyone getting hit or anyone getting hurt, including the driver, right? So the driver could also easily maybe go too fast. All it takes is a wrong turn of a wheel. He falls, he crashes and his he gets injured. So what they're saying is that it's more important to make sure people are safe than to make sure people have the ability to make the choice to be safe or not be safe. And also, if there's a speed limit, it might encourage more people to find greener ways of traveling. So using walking, cycling, using the bus. So what side do you agree with? The freedom side Yeah how come? Because having freedom. You can do whatever you want, but not to hurt others, other people. So think that people should have that choice to drive as fast as they want as long as they don't hurt other people. Yeah. So in a way, that's a mix of both sides. So when you say that they should drive how fast they want, that's the freedom side. But you saying as long as they don't hurt people, that's also the other side as well, because that's what the other side is about. So you're kind of in between that you think that people shouldn't have to drive strictly 20 miles per hour, but they still shouldn't drive so fast that they can hurt other people. Is that correct? Yeah. Okay. That's a good side to be on. Isabella. I like how you saw the benefits of both sides. So another one individual or community. Could you read the principles for individual over here? Anyone is responsible for themselves. Government, the better. People have the right to keep, whether they have earned by their work competition, competition between businesses is the best. All该。Current. Government. Yeah of government of. If it's been and good. Customers customer service for. Equal. Equally is good thing as it momove. Motivmotivate people to work harder. So sorry, the format was a bit messed up. This was meant to be a separate point for four. But for this individual point, what was just saying is that it's more important to be an individual than a community. So everyone is responsible themselves. The less government, the less control over them by other people, the better. People have the right to keep whatever they have earned by their work. So for example, there's something called taxes. Taxes is something that you put a certain amount of the money that you earn during work and you give it to the government to pay, for example, healthcare, education, other things, and you do that to be a member of society. So you get all the so you can get the benefits of it. And there's also competition between businesses is the best guarantee of efficiency and good customer service. So if you're competing against other people, that's the best way to make sure that your standards are high because you want to be the best. And lastly, inequality can be a good thing as it motivates people to work harder. So if you feel like you're not doing the best, if you feel like you have a bad hand at life, so if you feel like you're kind of struggling, it motivates you to work harder. So this is saying that it's more important to be an individual than a part of a community. Now for prinples, for community, can you read them for me, Isabella? Yes, we are all responsible, all for each other. The strong have a more moral duty to help the wake people work best and most productively when they work with support from outside government can be a force for good. Protecting the weak against the strong. Collaboration is be better than competition. Yeah. So what this is saying is it's more important to be a part of a community than is to be just by yourself. So the community prinples argue that we're all responsible for each other. We all have a duty to help each other and to help people who are struggling, people who work best and the most productively. People work the best and most productively when they work with support. So, for example, I know that I wouldn't be able to go through University without having my friends with me or my family. What about you as an allthink? Your family and friends really help you. Sometimes sometimes doesn't have to be with work. It can be about even making you happy, right? Even making sure that you know you're you're mentally healthy. Yeah Yeah. The government can also be a force for good. So the government can help to protect people. And collaboration is better than competition. So working together with people is better than working against people. So what do you agree with, Isabella, individual or community? Humcommunity community, how come can you. Give me a reason why. Because it might have someone how you were making you happy? Yeah. So you think it's really important to have people to rely on to support you? Yeah. Yeah, Yeah. Okay. So an example is University tuition fees should be free, so going to University should be free. So the community side says, do you want to read this for Isabella? Yeah. The题。University education should be available to everyone who has qualified for its asment. Hello hello hello, 嗯。Insion is better than compassion, children, of which part? Parents times have all their fees paid by their parents and never have the wrong about a worry. Never have to worry about repaying them, while other equally able students are. 爱发子的，萨的，傻子子的，啥都不会fudwith the bit。Deep bit that. Use of afterwards afterwards. Money should not buy privilege. Yeah so the community side, what that's saying is that they agree that University tuition fees should be free. The University education should be available to anyone who's qualified for it, right? So inclusion is better than competition, right? So it's better for everyone to be included than people to fight against one another. And also, children of rich parents sometimes have their all their fees paid for by their parents and never have to worry about repaying them. Whereas some people, some students, have to go into student debt. So if they're saddled with debt, that means they have lots of debt. Debt is basically where you owe someone something. And in this case, students owe a lot of people money, just they can afford an education. So this is saying that it's important for people to be part of your community where you don't have to be rich to be able to have education. However, the individual side says that having a University education is a benefit. Graduates earn far more than non graduates, so it's only fair that people should pay for a University education. It's also a basic human right to be able to bring up your children in the way you choose. Parents who choose to pay their children's tuition fees are only exercising their right. So the individual side says that it's a benefit or of going to University. So it's only fair that you pay for University and people should bring up the children and however way they choose, and if that means paying for their education, then they can do that. What side do you agree with? Or are you a bit in between? But in between, so you agree with parts of both, right? How come. 被套了。嗯。Working with. Working with. Community. In community is paying a government paying money. Oh, Yeah, because. Paying government money, the government paying my money. And but we work, individual work by ourselves. So youlike the community benefit of it being paid for. But you also think it's important to be an individual throughout it? Yeah, yes. Yeah. So well done, Isabella. So also, the overital side also says that measures such as this can only be funded by higher taxes. Higher taxes damage the economy, costs droso, reduces everyone's income. So what is the saying is that if University tuition fees are free, it can't really be free because someone still has to pay for it. So the government pays for this, but the government has to pay for it through taxes, which means taxes that everyone pays will be raised higher, so that that would be a disadvantage to anyone who's not even going to University, and they still have to pay for it. So that's another thing to think about. So once you start seeing motions through the lens of a big idea, you can analyze them much more effectively and create better arguments. So seeing through lens of a big idea, you're seeing things through the lens of different ways of seeing the world. So during a big ideas debate, keep the big idea in mind, constantly pulling the rope of the discussion back towards your end, talking up the values of your side and exposing the feelings of the values of the other side. So what this is saying is it's important to keep that big idea in mind. And as you're debating, as you're discussing other other people, make sure to always put attention on your side why it's better and why the other side and their values are worse. So today's debating motion is, before you die, would you choose to freeze yourself and deliver it 100 years later? So this is just a fun little question. It was a theory that if you freeze yourself, if you freeze yourself, you can your body doesn't age, which means that you can freeze yourself, skip forward to 100 years later, unfreeze yourself, and you are the same age as you were 100 years ago, but you're in the future. So it's sort of a way of time traveling, if that makes sense. But that's is a theory. It could work. It could not work, but it's very dangerous. But if you could, would you choose to freeze yourself and delivery 100 years later before you die? What do you think? 100 years later, 100 years later, Yeah just see what it's like. So oops, sorry. So I'm sorry, let me try and find. So I'm going to try and find a video for you. I'm going to bring it up to show you what this talks about because it's a bit of an unfamiliar topic, but I'm gonna to try to show you a video to so you know a bit more what it looks like. So let me share this video with you. Can you see this video? Sorry, this McDonald's I'm playing making me hungry. On January twelfth 1967, James Bedford passed away, but he had a plan to cheat death. Bedford was the first person to be cryogenically frozen. This process promised to preserve his body until a theoretical future when humanity could cure any illness and essentially reverse death. This is the dream of cryonics. But here's the catch. To revive people in the future, we need to properly preserve them in the present. So is it currently possible to freeze a human, preserve them indefinitely, and then safely thaw them out? To understand the hurdles of human cryo preservation, we need to leave the theoretical realm of cryonics and turn to the scientific field of Cryobiology. This discipline studies the effects of low temperatures on various living systems. And it is that decreasing in organism's temperature also decreases its cellular function. For example, at temperatures below negative 130 degrees Celsius, human cellular activity grinds to a halt. So if you could bring an entire human body below that temperature, theoretically you could preserve it indefinitely. The hard part is doing this without damaging the body. For example, let's try to freeze a single red blood cell. It typically sits at a temperature of 37 degrees Celsius in a solution of water and substances known as chemical solutes, which dissolve under certain conditions. But once the temperature drops below freezing, water outside and inside the cell hardens into damaging ice crystals. Without the correct concentration of water, the chemical solutes are unable to dissolve, and as the water freezes, they become increasingly concentrated in a destructive process known as osmotic shock. Without any intervention, these factors are guaranteed to destroy our red blood cell. Before technology to better manage the ice preservation technology to better manage the ice problem, many cryobiologists are trying to solve this issue with an approach called vitrification. This technique uses chemicals known as cryoprotecting agents to prevent ice from forming. Some of these have been adapted to formation of ice, or worse, as but none of these are anywhere near the size and complexity of a whole human being. So if it's not currently possible to cry or preserve a person, what does this mean for Bedford and his frozen peers? The sad truth is that current cryonic preservation techniques only offer their patients false hope as practiced, they're both unscientific and deeply destructive, irreparably damaging the body's cells, tissues, and organs. Some devotees might argue that, like death and disease, this damage may be reversible one day. Even if scientists could revive people through chonic preservation, there's a whole suite of ethical, legal and social implications, which cast doubts on the technogy's overall benefits. But for now, the dream of cronics is still on ice freezing your body. So I hope that was a bit interesting for you. So currently, it's still debated whether it actually works or not. Again, you can't know until 100 years later and there is potential technologies to help and freeze yourself. But theoretically, if there was a potential for it to work, would you want to do it? Same, I'm a bit too scared. I keep on thinking, what if it doesn't work? What it's too dangerous? And also, hundred years later, I won't know anyone there, so I'll be quite lonely. But some people want to freeze themselves with their friends together. So it's a bit of a friend's road trip, I guess. But Yeah. So what do you think about this? What do you think are some big ideas about this or some assumptions of this motion? It's a bit tricky to think about, but is there anything you could think of? I to 100 years. But is there any like so we talked about big ideas in the session. I'm aware there's only like a minute, two minutes left, but it's about trying to see it through the lens of a bigger issue or a bigger topic. So in this case, it is quite hard to think about because it doesn't really seem like much. But some things you could say are it might be a way of controlling for population size, right? So there's a current issue with overpopulation, where there are too many people currently available. It's currently living in the present on the planet, and our resources are running out. So you could say that this is a way to control overpopulation by saying, if you freeze yourself now and 100 years later, you can get back to life. However, there's an issue that this can offer false hope to people, right? Because again, there's no guarantee that it works. And even if it doesn't work, you won't know it because you'll be frozen. You won't know. So it could be a dangerous way of trying to play on people's hopes and dreams, and it could be used unethically. But for example, if you offer a certain amount of money, people might do it because they're desperate, which can be, again, unethical. So there are different issues to think about here, but I hope you learned a bit more about the big ideas today about what different issues, what different debates are talking about and trying to look beyond just the statement itself and trying to see if there are any assumptions behind the statement that are good or bad. But thank you for today's lesson, Isabella. I hope you enjoyed this lesson. I hope it was a bit interesting to learn about freezing yourself and the potential for that, even if it is a bit scary. But the next motion is that pen and paper should be outlawed, so made illegal and replace with digital products. So I'll leave you to think on that. And I will see you for our next lesson. Bye. Have a nice day. Bye.