Hello, don't know if anyone's out. I Oh Nason's got to a different background. I may say to you again, Yeah, Yeah how are you today? I'm fine today. Have you done any exams today? Every week I speak to you at the moment, you tell me you've got exams. Did you have a test this week? No test today. No test today. That's really good. No test today. I jdid you became, you're fully in mask mode. He's pulling in mamurare you a kj duhave got you've got an illness. You're unmuted for telling us I'm sick. You're sick. Oh no. Jay duwhat, have you got a cold, flu, stomach bug? Oh, to be honest, I haven't been very well this week, so I kind of really feel for you. Yeah, I've also, I've also had a bit of a cold. Not anything serious, but okay. I thought very nice, is it? Oh bless you jden be still here. Hi kloe. How are you today? Yeah. What have you been up to this week? We've got many tests today again. Oh no. Masons is finished, but yours are still going. What tedid you have this week? Math and inquiry. A maths and inquiry. Did you say? Yeah. What's inquiry? I've never heard of the subject. Chloe. What is inquiry like? Kind of like science. Okay. So like investigating things, but in a scientific way that that sounds actually quite cool. And then we've got George that's joining us today. George, are you there? Might not be you next. And yes. Hi, George. How are you? I'm fine. Yeah. Do you have a camera, George, or does your camera not work? Hey, have you had a good week this week, George? Yeah, Yeah. What have you been up to this week? We have no exams. You have no exams. That's a good thing. Full gory, the only one out in the exams. And here's Renee, because Zoe's not here today. So Zoe will join us again next week. But we have George with us, this class. So that will be nice and fun for us to have someone else with us. A Renee, how are you today? Yeah. Well, jade and Zill, Chloe is doing exams. Maas having a nice chilled week. George has been having a nice chilled week. Renee, what have you been up to this week? Just. School, just lots of school stuff. And guys, I'm going to tell you my week has been really fun and I can't wait for tomorrow. It's tomorrow, I get to put up my Christmas tree and I'm very excited as Christmas is coming in the uk and it's very stormy and horrible and rainy outside and it's very gloomy. So I'm so excited to get this Christmas tree and anybody else celebrate Christmas. Oh, Mason, what do you do for Christmas? Mason, Renee's got stockings. I love those. They're so cute. Mason, what do you do for Christmas? I also put up the Christmas tree. You put a Christmas tree. So, Chloe, did you celebrate it? Like kind enough, like when also like stockings and not not really a Christmas tree, but we'll have decorations in there. Nice decorations to fill the place. Well, about you, Dan and George. Do you celebrate Christmas? No, Jason doesn't celebrate at all. What about you, George? But I will celebrating in the future. Are you going to celebrate in the future? Oh, yes, I'm going to bring next week, guys, I'm coming in a Christmas jumper and a Christmas hat. It's going to get very, very festive, I tell you. Well welcome all of you George it's so lovely. Say again to make your christmake it very gonna make you what is your Christmas tree made of? It's fake Renee I make I have a fake Christmas tree I'm afraid to say I know I should get a real one but I have a fake one but I'm putting it up tomorrow. I will bring a picture next week. You can all see my lovely Christmas tree. Today. We are carrying on with our rebuttal. George, have you debated before? Yes, yes. Okay, amazing. So today, last week, George, and today we've been talking about rebutattling and how to create good arguments from what other people have said. Yeah. So saying something like Chloe said in her second point that this, this, this, I don't agree because all right, so we're talking today a bit more about big fat fallacies and looking at bad arguments and how to rebook them. So an affirmative team, agree team or negative might make an argument that makes no sense, sounds good, but is a good no facts and has just given you lots of information but no evidence. Okay? And it's your job as the opposition to find out, know the pitfalls, the problems with their argument. So logical fallacy. So we've got to think about one thing following another. If I am talking about banning plastic bags, I can't then start talking about banning fake Christmas trees, for example, because one thing doesn't follow the other, okay? But I can talk about the impact, the reason we need to ban them. I can say plastic bags are going in the ocean and they are killing fish and environment because it's the same subject. You need to listen out for this in debating, especially at top level sort of debating teams, there will always be one debater who gives you a lot of facts and figures, but they're not following each other. It sounds maybe speaker one is talking about something very different to what their teammates are talking about. And that can be a really, really big problem. Causation one thing causing another. Yeah plastic bags causing pollution, causing climate change. So you've got to think because then you could build your argument ments. It's not just this isn't just the little problem, it's a bigger problem. Yeah and then equating summing, two things are the same. Assuming I should say Yeah is one topic the same as another topic? We've got to be careful of what we're saying. If we're talking about eBook e textbooks in school, okay. But then you can't talk about storybooks. They're something very different. You can't assume they're the same the same thing. There's something different about them. 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 Yeah climate change. And climate change and fashion might be happening at the same time, but they don't make any sense together. You've got to be really careful. All examples in your last maths test, you've got 90% your best results ever. You also wore red socks that day. You've got another maths test tomorrow. What should you do, Renee? What should I do in this situation? We're another arreshould. I wear the red socks again. They seem to have got me a good result. Such songs. What do you think, George? Do you think? What do you think I should do to get a good result again? Oh, you're on mute, George. Review the knowleis. Yeah, we should build our knowledge. Red socks. Renee, why would I put the red ad socks back on? Yes, George, we should perhaps study. What do you think, Jaden? He was Renee for the socks. Are the socks the reason she got 90%? Or is George right? Middle? I mean, the middle. You made the veto. Oh, your mind mnot made up. Since our emotions sometimes think that it's nothing else with our knowledge and so and so our emotion tions thought, Hey, we have good like wearing those red socks. And what if we wear the red socks tomorrow? And we'll still get a great and another part this evening time email list review all your textbooks and broadyour horizons and next day perhaps you might get better. And even without the red socks, Oh, okay, okay, right. So because we're in the mind mind not made up category as back today, George, will you had your hand up? What were you going to say? That. Wrong touch it. Oh, you touched it by accithat's. Okay. George Mason, what you were? George, it's revision. Or you with Renee? No, it's luck. Let's have our resocks on. Or my men not made up. Yeah, might not made up. I also might not make up. Okay. Why are we Minnot made up? It just socks. Yes. The cause, the red socks. Like like you got like grlike the best ever result. Like like there is like a possibility that when you wear the rest tomorrow and you will also get the best result, but maybe it is just like it is not real, but maybe like when you wear the rest again, like you maybe will just like get 60% because you didn't review eal what you need to do on the math test. So why not? Okay. Okay. So we think that maybe there is something in lucky socks here. Okay, Chloe bring some sensensibility here. Red Sox with Renee man not made up or with George no, we should study socks make no difference. I think thought wouldn't really make any difference in okay, so so you think like George, we should we should do it. Okay. And I will say that George and Chloe are correct in this situation. Yeah, I love I love having my lucky socks or having my lucky jumper. Yeah, I think it makes you feel confident, right? But the reality is they don't really make any real logical sense together. Yes, there is an element that you can have a lucky jumper, lucky socks, lucky lucky badge, lucky glasses, makes us feel safer. But really the only reason you've got 90 is because you've revised it. I can't not do any revision or take no glasses and turn up in me red socks and a exam. That's not going to happen. But I like the optimism, right? So wear Red Sox or derevision. Well, obviously derevision. Okay, here we have a proposition. This house would buy violent video games. Okay? I put this to all of you. 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. So I was going to say, are violent video games making more knife crime or are they not related? Jaden, you've just started us off. What do you think? I think I'm for this kind of motion to bthe things. Okay. Why jade? And why do you think they are related things? According to some experts opinions and also some what the Daily News, the China Daily news, I've seen five or six kind of things related to this kind of a situation. It talk about that one in Thailand, I think. And there was one person who like like using cons in the video games and he didn't know and he actually shot a few people. There's actual evidence to say that it is anyone agreeing with jade en and anyone disagree with jade en make soon. I agree with Jada. I mean, like I mean, I said, like we do not need to like I want to ban violcomputer games because like this still like like this game like if like at the same time like that was a life prilike life primes are scary and maybe like what the would make the children like like going like really used like really like do like some using the knife thing like in their real life and like equal and I feel like bandy skin like it keep the child safe. Yeah, Yeah. So so actually we do think this is relative. We do think this is this is something at climy. What do you think? Do you think violent video games can lead to more knife crimes, to more violence? Or are they not really related? Thinking they're really related because they they just connected to their future? They might do that in their future, though it's quite quite early, isn't it, to be exposed to violence with video games? And there is research. But I suppose, Renee, do we do we think that actually we could just teach our children that that's a video game and knife crime is something different? No, I think you're related to because when you play video games are violence often, then you think you may start to think that it is reality. And well, if the video games are really so violent, well, they might even be killing people in it. And then if you play them so often, you will think that killing people isn't a big thing and in reality you will kill people. Okay. Okay. Also with vr can feel very real these days, kic, when we immerse ourselves and say, George, what do you think? Are you agreeing with everyone? Or are you got a different view? I think we shouldn't play violent computer games because they because they will teach the children to kill some people. And if the children are a big fan in it, they they will they will have to mental health. Mental health. Have a have a problem with the mental health. Yeah, very well done. So we're talking about mental health. We're talking about how physically violent is, how real it looks. Yeah. So we're all we're all unanimous. We do believe video games and knife prime do go hand in hand. So we do think that this would be a hard motion to go against actually. Well done, all of you. Okay, today we're going to be practicing all of this, these rebutttles that you've been doing. We're going to be thinking about our logical fallacy. So think about horrific domknife priers. You have not provided any evidence that is connected with the use of violent video games. Okay? But I kind of feel like you guys did. Actually, millions of Young people play violent video games every day, and only a tiny minority engage in acts of violence. This is surely compelling evidence that playing these games is harmless. Oh no, I've got a storm, guys. Just to let you know, a storm has started. If you lose me that his wife and enlighghtning is outside my house currently. And so I suppose there is a motion to think as the negative team. Hang on a minute, you've got no statistics. You've given me no numbers, but I have numbers, which is why you have to be prepared. Yeah. And so slippery slope. It's inevitable progress towards an extreme consequence for an action without proving that there is consequence. It is a bad argument if you can not give me reasons or evidence to why you think it. Okay. And so today we're going to put this into our motion sticks. I want to get round to chairring today. So we need to start our debate quite early. This house believthat more land should be dedicated as national parks. Okay, let's think about the affirmative artists. Let's think, first of all, why serrennee? Why should we do this motion? Why should we have more land to national parks? Probably because that. More and more people think that national parks are in. Short availance. As we could say, nabots are in short supply. Yeah, short supply. Absolutely. Mason, you had your hand up. What are we you going to say? Yes, I will see that national parks can help. Can when you move national parks, there will be more like like the house. But even do the house declike, the national parks will have like you know like more place like for the other people like to live and like there are more trees like which can like help a release carbon dioxide for for us to breathe. And like also we we say that like the variety of animals like will be there will be more and like people can like enjoy the view here. Brilliant. So basically we say the variety of animals will be vast. It's little more. We could say vast, that means the same thing, but it's a nicer vocabulary. Yes, George must disagree with it. Some people, you both say, you both say that that built that building National Park will will reduce, reduce cowill help more, have more places for other people to live. Watch, they, but they uses places so there actually will be less places for other people to live. You say they, they could build trees to reduce the co two, but build it causes more, more, more co two to produce. So I must disagree with it. George has just gone against Mason and Renee, and our debate has kind of already started. Let's get Chloe and Jaden involved. Chloe, some very compelling arguments from both sides. One saying, we're gonna to protect wildlife. It's gonna to be vaster national parks. We've got shortage gonna to help us with our environment. Georis come in and said, no, it's gonna to take away people's homes. It's gonna to have co two, as we build them, less places for people to live. What do you think, gory? I think that I agree that Moreland should be dedicated in National Park. Actually I think that if we have more national parks, people wouldn't actually really want to pollute like more land, then people will be more comfortable to live. Hey, a little more lag. Okay, so so Chloe saying no, it's okay actually because actually it's such a good benefit. George, I'm gonna come back to you in a second. I'm just gonna bring Jaden into our debate as well. So Jaden, what two very good arguments over here. What do you think jadden four. You're also four. Okay. Why why do you agree with this? Well about loads of scientific research and there's lots more to say than the like the disagreeing side about the complex society, humanity, those okay, so scientific research to show it helps. Okay, George, watch what you're going to say. Feel like you've got some other ideas for us. So I must disagree with coyes. She says that if we have small national parks that we won't pollute more land, but build it. We causes more pollution and the research and scientific research to show it helps us. But but is it real? There's jden. That's not how we argue. You can't just show us a piece of paper. I'm going to come down. I'm going to come down because I think both of these arguments are really good. And remember, your chairing says you are going to be also fighting on both sides of this team. And it sounds like George is going na give us some great ideas for disagreeing. I what I want na say, the problem sometimes with national parks in the uk, I can only talk about it from uk, is we build like centers in the National Park, so cafes, shops, tours, which then brings a lot of people coming to these national parks, which I'm not sure is what the National Park was for, right? Isn't it to protect, as Mason said, the wildlife? But by making the national parks, aren't we then sort of inviting too many people to these national parks? Do we not then happy to maybe we have to pay money to enter the National Park? So like those people will be going to the National Park, but then you can you can in some national parks maybe, but like I said, in the uk, maybe not where where where you're living, but some national parks are free. Yeah. But in national parks, like you can stop building too many shops and like stalike to like go to buy things. So like let's be so people will just look for the view but not to buy anything. Okay, so actually you're talking here, Mason. That's a really good thing to think about is, okay, we think there should be more, but there should be rules around it. We should be reducing the amount of people that should be going in. Okay, let's think now more about these. Why do we have national parks? What's the reason for happening in National Park? Why did they start happening? Wildlife, build a habitat for the wildlife and create ek paradise. Yes, because what will we doing to all these animals? To help them to just have another generation. Yeah. So national parks are created to make it a place for animals, but has it done that? Are national parks actually saving these animals? They aren't. Harding know they jd. According to researchers I look at before this class, and it's about the right reptiles. So it creates new forms of life. Hmm, it's new forms, George, what do you think? You say that national parks created to make it a place for animals, but I but there are also researches, it shows that it it that it will it will abuse the animals. So it actually won't save the animals and they will abuse the animals. And they may why do we think that they could end up abusing these animals? This is a very good point, very counterargument here to think about how might some national parks not be doing what they said they would do? Rewhy are some national parks maybe be abusing their animals and not looking after them? Maybe some national parks can use animals such as transportation, like train and cars to like bring tourists to other places and let them have a wonderful time in the park. But in training those animals, they might abuse them. Yeah. And actually, this causes pollution. The very thing we didn't want our national parks to have in Snowden or Erith in Wales. They've put a great big train line going all the way up the mountain, which has now taken away National Park like areas and has killed loads of animals. So sometimes we do have to think, on the surface, national parks have a great idea, right? But actually, are they doing the thing we set out to do? Is every National Park being run correctly? Is every National Park a good idea? And should we make everything a National Park? I've seen it in this country recently. There's a bit of land, and it's a National Park. Suddenly it's not necessarily the best place for a National Park to be. Chloe, I'd like to hear from from you a little bit more. Do you think the benefits of the National Park outweigh the cons of a National Park? I think like the. Benefits National Park, okay, why do you think the benefits are better? Because like if the benefits are better, like more people would want to build some National Park and they might had wanted to have the idea to build the National Park if they wanted to like kind of save energy for the world. Okay, so keeping our Green spaces, we are in danger of covering a planet in buildings and houses. And so there is arguments here today for and against which we're gonna to be doing you're gonna to be fighting on both eyes today so you're gonna have to think about for and against so because I want na make sure that we've all got time today to at least chair if we can run so well done gonna keep all those in the board for us. Just some other ideas to think about today okay, Oh no, it hasn't given us anything today. So other things to think about you want to think about it, have, do we need the space for our population? Do we have a housing crisis? So actually, is it not actually very beneficial? Are some of the national parks not needed? Are some of the national parks actually causing more co two and more tourism and more people to wander around in these national parks disturbing animals? Or are we in a case where there is no Green space left and we must protect the Green space? We are in an age where we have climate change. Do we need to save our national parks and our wildlife? What scientific research have you done before class? Don't worry if you've not done that, but just think about, okay, what is the best argument that you can give today? Yeah, I'm not only going to give you a few minutes. Yes. Hello, who's asking me questions? Yes, Mason. So I was gonna say, can we choose like what like are we going to like this house? Like going to choose like on like you disagree or agreewe gonna show you now, Mason, what we're gonna try and do in the time we've got half an hour. I'm really hoping we can get around everyone. If someone does not chat today, you will chat next week, I promise. Okay, I'd like to try and get around everybody. But if we don't, don't worry, you're going to probably start in these teams because George is going to kick us off with some disagree. I'm going to put, for example, Mason, Chloe, George, Renee. Okay. And then what will happen is Jaden will chair, so we'll be me chairing today. Itbe. Jaden, chaering, okay. And then what we'll do is once we've done our first debate, we will swap people around. Some people will stay on their team. Some people will change. So for example, we can then put Renee over here and we'll put Mason over here. Chloe will chair and George will come over here. Okay. And then we restart our debate on, I want to, when you will, Jaden, because then what happened is Mason might go in here, kloe will end up over here. You'll swap again with George over here and youend up over here. So it's a chance for everyone to chair, but it's also a chance for us to practice Yeah active listening rebutttling and thinking about the topic from all angles. Remember I said to you, that's the way you win a debate is because you understand the other side arguments as well. Okay, I will leave all of these things we've discussed on the board. So if it's a side you don't really agree with, you won't be left going. I have no idea what to say. Yeah, because theybe on the board for you to use. Renee, I saw them in your hand. What do you have during your debate that will help you win your debate as people are talking? You had something in your hand earlier. You had your cue cards and your bits of paper. Yeah. So remember guys, Yeah all you can ever do. Yes, that's it, George. All you can do while people are speaking, it's all you put notes of what they're saying along with your own debate. You can't make a big, big speech. Yes, there we go. So we can have an opposition, exactly. But also we might want to change it as we're going along because someone might make a statement you don't agree with. Okay, amazing. We're gonna go for it. Let's leave Mason in the chair position. Let's pop Jaden as our first speaker today. So jden, obviously our affirmative team will go first. As I say anyone that we don't get round to Chaing, I promise you, you will chair next week. The one person yes, I'll give us some time to prepare. I will give you a few minutes. Don't have a lot otherwise, Mason, we're not gonna get round many people, but I can give you a few minutes. Yes. So should I give you four minutes to think about or make any notes? What have I done? Can you go back to the place? Notes? I dwhat I'm done. So I'll give you four minutes to make any extra notes that youlike to make. And then we're going to begin. Okay, four minute. One person you will definitely chair today is George. Yes, Renee, you can have your pen. Have you may have your pen? Yes. If you want to circle anything, just don't scribble on the board. Other people need to see it ddidn't like that last. I've done any accident jade has started scribbling already. Right now, what are you doing? These aren't notes. Four, question mark. I'd start writing some notes. George has got his speech prepared gaang, so has jadand got all his notes on his already? Yeah. Exactly. Yes. That's why jden's right? And jdan's ready is ready for his fight. So jden, you will go first. We won't speak. We're gonna make sure we don't have too many minutes because obviously you want to get round to a few debates today. So we'll all speak for about minutes. Ittwo minutes. Yes. And like I said, we may not get round everyone. But don't panic. You will have a chance. Not this lesson. Next lesson, Jaden, people might need the notes. Can take your bed away from you. I could take yours away from you, Renee, as well. And what I also do is while we're waiting, thank you, George. Actually, I'm going to use this space, I will put down just some tips to help you with your Charing. Yes. And I'm going to expand it a little bit. Leons lemons? We will not open the floor today. What? No. Let's take this away. I am writing high on the board. Up to mischief someone someone's up to mischief again we a 30s. As our motion, I'm going to leave all this up. This will be the chair. I'm also creating a breakout room. As the chair and the audience member me, when the debate is finished, we'll be popping into the breakout room. To decide who we think should win. All right, okay, let's get everyone in position, shall we? So how am I gonna to do this? I've got too much on the board. So George is 100 starting on the disagree section. Chloe, you are joining George for this round. Don't worry you'll have a chance to agree afterwards I promise. Yeah just do what you can Chloe. Yeah remember we can end up on any side of a team whether we agree or not. All right. Jdan's going to kick us off today in his agree. Got to put you here. Renee is also going to join jden over here. Amazing. And we're to take pens away so we don't knock the board. Lovely gobbly. And our chair is on its way. Where ever you base, you've disappeared. Miss Mason. She will shout, Mason, he's disappeared. He's disappeared. Must be his Internet. So see this. He isn't he's not everything. Okay. Oh, no, we've lost. We might have just done it's okay. I'm gonna start it and then Mason can jump in when he comes back in. Yeah. Okay. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Today's motion is this house believe that more land should be dedicated as national parks. On the affirmative team, we have speaker jden and speaker Renee. On the negative team, we have speaker George and speaker Chloe. Speaking time is set to no more than two minutes. The chair will stop you after two minutes. Finishing earlier is fine. Affirmative team, you will be speaking first, and your time starts now. Speaker jden, hello, our morning jade. So I'm speaker jade, the spring rich judges and vodebbaters. Today, we firmly advocate that more land should be dedicated as national parks. This is not a choice between nature and progress, but absolutely a necessary investment in humanity. Future one backed up with scientific a ness. There's an ecological urgency. First, we knew that the in our child stones, but the book about nature selection, the molecules are made up in the prisoup. And so the bigger bacteria were well addead by the molecules. They are complex. So in our, that's the same, completely the same. In the part, the national part is Batit's for the animals main habitats. It protects wildlife. So the climate change, what wouldn't just affect them? It was reported that 87% of the visitors, 18 to 24, believe that two is four to have the national parks there. Loads of animals in the national parlike, reptiles, including some kind of crocodiles and giant Asian medidness. The conversation into conversation thought, it's extremely good for our house. The trees could fight against the carbon dioxide so they solve global necessities in the 20, 20, 23 century. Thank you. The speaker jspeaker George, time starts now. Okay, I must disagree with that. So Jan says it it will help the animal habitat but but these animal have habitat but they won't but the National Park won't have a, won't have a good good place for them. They will they will found abuabuse and it won't be a, it won't be a be an eco friend friendly thing project because because the project will build for a lot of disadvantages. First it will build, it will will burn a lot of carbon dioxide, although, although they, they could, they could absorb carbon dioxide in, Furthermore, they, but they, they can't, they can't absorb carbon dioxide. They instead. Instead, they they pollute the carbon dioxide. And there are a lot of disadvantages too. For example, to build, to build a National Park park will will well, some farmers and some some farmers will disagree with it and and they won't they won't help to build it. So you, so it costs a lot of money and and you can't have a, and you can't get the the effects. So they will. So I think this is not a good idea. Thank you, speaker George. Speaker Renee, your time starts now. I think that more land should be dedicated as national parks, because firstly, national parks will have more Green growand, more animals. We need Green, Green growth because they can produce oxygen and reduce carbon dioxide. Also, in addition to ospeaker, George said that buildings can produce carbon dioxide. When we have enough Green growth, Green growth, we can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that we have produced. Also, when we have more national parks, we can see more views. And maybe in doing this, we can know that we need to protect nature and not destroy it. Lastly, I think that protecting animals can also be capable when we build national parks, because the animals will have their normal habitats, and they will also be comfortable and with hope. Hopefully, with new rules, the visitors and tourists won't disturb the animals. In conclusion, I think that moorlands should be dedicated as national parks. Oh, mute Mason. Thank you, speaker. Thank you, speaker respeaker though your time starts now. My my name is Chloe. And I think that don't they don't need, like more land should be dedicated as national parks first. I think that if they like, build more natural parks, they won't be even capable for all of them. Some people wouldn't be very capable to have like more like spaces, and they might put something else in the National Park, not like animals. They will cause more pollution, more guess you too. And I think that the polluting land wouldn't help people to survive and wouldn't help people to live in this earth, even though people would want a, like, healthier and fresher air in the national parks, and they wanted to go to the national parks, then why wouldn't there be a crowded space in there? They might be crowded in there and not. And then if they are crowded, they might be smoking and using cigarette in there and there might be pollution there also. So it might like go through the National Park and into into your and your own living space. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, speaker Chloe. No, let's look. Okay. So this is there going to be a slightly different things? Chloe, Renee, Jaden and George, you are going to stay in the room. Me and Mason are very quickly going to step out and we're going to make our decision on the winner. We shall be back in a moment. Okay, Mason, who do you think agree team or disagree team? I agree to I think the agree to why think the agree ative? Although I've got to say George made a very, very compelling argument against it. But should we say it? And this, yes, I said like a chly also said like the stickers thing, that's also the cigarettes was really good wasn't it? But I think I think the other team just had a better argument in terms of science didn't they? So we're gonna we're gonna to award it to the agree team. Okay. Okay, right off we go. We're and we are back and the chair will now announce the winner also the winner is the greeting well zjated and Renee however, me and the chair both said, George, your debate today was really well thought out and I think what was really great about everyone actually was everyone thought by what someone else has said. But George, we absolutely gave us a tough chance because we really thought you prepared that debate so beautifully today. And it really thought about that other angle. And Chloe, we did also want to commend you for the cigarettes. We thought that that was really clever in your debate today and the idea that cigarettes could litter. But we just felt that jadden's scientific sort of debate and there just just clinched the win. Well well done okay office debate over right George because of George are be here next week and George you're going to be chair for this one you're going get to run this debate je didn't Renee and now going over to you disagree Chloe finally gets to offer a agree now you'll be happy with loo and Mason is going to go over here on the agree okay chair George welcome chair George it's all yours over to you. Okay, and it's all here for you, George. Good evening, late dies. And gentlemen, to day's motion is this house believed that Moland should be dedicated as national parks. On the affirmative team, we have Mason and Cole. On the negative team, we have, we have jden and Fredy. Speaking time is no more than two minutes. Affirmative team, your time start. Your time starts now. First, let's welcome Mason. Okay, so hello, my name is, and I am the, and I'm going to say that this house believe that more land should be dedicated as National Park. So first, my first opinion is that more and more people think that National Park are in are in short supply. I like also national parks like will have places for like the other people to live and like there will be more trees and hope to to release like carbon dioxide for us to breathe more. Well, also the talk about the variety of animals will be vaand all there will be all the animals to be to be companions with you. It will be really cool. I like like make a more warm like place for you to learn with more friends according Yeah more than like should be dedicated for the National Park. Like because you think that if we have more National Park like we then we won't need to pollumore land because because when we have, but because I if we do not build national parks and we build houses, the houses I have a will pollute because like the buildings, the crane, like well, like a lot of things and will make, but if you just make a National Park, it will just like make it more cleaner Yeah like also some national parks, like I mean, you have to pay to get and stops too many people to go in. And like inside, you do not put too many shops to people to spend, but just enjoy the view. So I think that this house believed that more land should be dedicated as national parks. Thank you, Mason. Now, jden, please start your options. So hello everyone. I'm speaker jjudges and fellow debbaters. While we acknowledge the importance of the environmental protection, we've firmly opted the proposition sation that more land should be dedicated as national parks. The policy is imprcal unfair to local communities and efficient, mean efficient, ignoring all altertives and balance conversation of human needs. We first we shall have more spaces to make buildings. And first I'm going to address masons point, Mason's point about the seeing the views. Every side can see the views, but however, it's just not that National Park could see the views. Maybe you look at the window, the views is exciting. Zrockson, a renowsustainable scientist and director of politics tight into it for Climate Impact Research, warns that in a world with people and growing, we can't afford the locktop washes to watch H the land as the national parks, it expanded as the 12% one National Park costs more than 33000 million dollars. So where the ansome forest overlaps the fertilized agricultural ground, designing more parts can lead to conflict between conversations and agriculture. So let us reject the proposition to depucate more than as national parthank. You, everyone, bye. Thank you, Jadon. Now, cois, your turn. Hi, my name is Chloe and I'm on agreteam for this topic. This health believed that moorland should be dedicated as national parks. I think that if there is more national parks than the city would need it to be, very like you need to be actually thinking about the environment of this world. And if there are too many people, there might be rules in the parks. So actually there not my the like things that you can't bring and you can't do in this National Park. And even though people will be too many, but people can actually stay at home also. And do you know that one trees can let two people survive like for just a long time? They can bring the for oxygen and they can just have more clean air. And if they don't have cleaner, they might just be cofor all over. And there wouldn't be really clever like humans in the world. Don't you want that humans to survive on the world? If you want, then you need to care about the environment, right? If you want to care about the environment, then you need to build a natural part. Thank you, coy. Now really e, please share about your opinion. Land should be it as national parks because firstly, some national parks. Does not do us what through says. And some may even abuse animals, which is the exact, the exact opposite of what national parks are supposed to do. They might abuse animals in ways to train them for tourists, for tourist attractions, and use them as a way of transportation. And in the way of training them, the animals might be abused. Also, in building the national parks, we, we may polluthe air, and they Rothey might even be no smosmoking, which will, what the animals are, may even kill them. Also when when the national parks are built. When the national parks are built, they will need large amounts of people and other things to build those national parks. So it's so I think that's. So I think that fewer land should be dedicated as national parks. Please can the chair and the audience member now vote. Okay, so our last thing to do today, so me and George is gonna to go in 30s. We'll be back. Okay, George, welcome to the new room. We're in a secret room never giving heroes. So George, what do you think? Who do you think for you was the winner? Do you think the disagree team or do you think the agree team. I think the agree team was great because they because they have a lot of opinions, but I think the the disagreed teams are better because they because they have the scientific research scientific research and they can they can thinking about every thinking about every kind of problem. Yeah, I'm I'm agreeing with you, George. So we're going with the disagree team. We think they should win this this round. Yeah. Okay. Should go back and tell him. Let's get tell them. George, I've I'm with you. I think this is is absolutely the right decision. Okay, here we go. All right, George has his decision. Make my so I would like to tell you that the that the agreeting was great because they they say a lot of six, but I think the disagree teams are better because they thinking about the, thinking about every kind of problem. So I think the winner is the disagree team. Bden and Renee again today. Well done. But me and George were talking and we were saying, Chloe Mason, we really did like the amount of opinions. I think it's just about making sure you've done some of that research beforehand. A little note for you both to think about for next week, right? I've got these names down. Chloe, Renee, Jaden, you will chair next week as Mason and George have chared, okay, so promise you, you will get your chance. Don't cry, rei. Promise you'll get a chance to chair Weldon. Chairman Mason, and what happened to my board? Where's my power point? God, I'll have to send you the motion for next week. Well done, Mason and George. Fantastic chaering. Mason, this was your third time. So much more confident, so much more confident. You were really making sure we were on time. So that's really great to see. So something for you all to take on board. Yes, Mason. I do not want to say anything. I just like you. Just you just wanted to try it. You guys are amazing. George, thank you so much for joining us today. Been an absolute pleasure to have with us Mason, Renee, jade and Chloe. Wow, it is getting better each week and you're putting so much effort in. I'm so proud of be all and well done to my winners Jaden and Renee today and have a wonderful week. I'll send you the motion in the chat and I'll speak to you soon. Bye bye God.