O DEBATE

                    Segue o artigo que escrevi para o blog da RVA, sobre a legalização da maconha.

                                                                THE DEBATE

                                                             In my point of view

                                                                                                                                                    By Lina

                    Last week, the Sports and Culture Group promoted a very interesting debate about legalizing marijuana.  This is a very important issue in this island,  because there are many illegal plantations of marijuana, destroying the forests, especially in the volcano mountain, the main touristic attraction of the island.

                     St. Vincent is going to elect the Prime Minister next week, so this issue is  being debated by every people interested in the country’s direction .  I will tell you my impressions about the debate.

                     It  was  very well organized by the Culture Group. There were two tables, one in front of the other, where the two teams, for and against legalization, and in front of them there was a framework with the rules of the debate.  At the other side sat the judges with a paper with the criteria for judgment.

                      At first there were the presentations done by the leaders of the groups, and then the judges asked questions.  After the questions from the judges, the groups asked questions to each other. There was a time to manifestations from the public and at the end, they presented the final reasons.

                      The group who was against legalization was very well prepared. Their main argument was the great possibility of large companies in buying the land and practicing monoculture on a large scale, using the vincentians for cheap labor, damaging the environment,  and doing nothing for the country.  And this argument was said with a beautiful speech, full of academic citations and very well placed and interpreted numbers. During the questions and the debate, they strengthened their position, always seriously, telling about the danger of lead people to addiction. They also told about some mental illness that could be triggered with the use of marijuana.

                       The group for legalization, did not have a beautiful speech, but had good arguments such as the plant can be used for fabrication of plastic, clothes, biofuel; marijuana has a lot of medicine employments; the way it is now, only the lords of traffic are becoming rich and powerful with the drug, and if it was legalized, the government could receive much more money with the taxes; it could be better for the economy. They were all very good arguments, but were said not with a serious face, and academic phrases. They had no numbers to demonstrate their propositions.

                         I  also noticed that the “not legalization” group, during the debates, told several times “this is not an argument” and the “yes” group did not answer it!

                        For me, it seemed that the set favorable was so sure about their ideas, that they thought that the facts would speak for themselves and they would not need to argue with the other group, because they were saying obvious things.

                    After a short break,  the judges concluded.  All of them explained their vote and said that according to the criteria for judging, the team against legalization won the debate.

                     The debate was finished.  But the issue was not.  Both teams continued discussing. And now, with more passion! New theories, new arguments, the losing   team, not happy with the outcome, criticized the judges.  The judges defended themselves, saying  that  had only followed the criteria of judgment.

                     And from what I understood, the criteria for judgment referred especially to the panelists, and not to the facts!  The judges did not judge the issue, they judged the performances!

                     I kept thinking about this way of judge, for all the next day… and new questions appeared in my mind:

                      Does the society judge the same way?

                      Instead of paying attention and have an opinion about facts, and acts, the society usually watch the performing of people. The way of showing an idea is more important than the idea?

                      In my opinion, the judges were not wrong. They had to judge according  the rules. And the rules were focused mainly on how the ideas and facts were presented, and not on the content thereof.

                      Which is more important in our life: an idea or the way to present it?   Share your thoughts about it.

                                                      
                                                                                    ***


                              Voce já pode dizer eu li na tela da
                                                                                                 Eulina