| Back | ||||||||||||||||
| Frankenstein Debate | ||||||||||||||||
![]() |
||||||||||||||||
| The Frankenstein debate was a debate that centered around the death of a young boy in the story named William. The class was split up while in out mentor sessions, split in half by either arguing the innate side or the blank slate side, and then broken down farther into specific lenses. I myself was on the blank slate side and in the human development lens. This debate had a real debate fashion. One side would speak, then the other side would speak, but we would not get to rebut what the other side said until after both parties stated what they were arguing. This was slightly difficult at times, but I believe that the class did a good job. Posted below is my reflection on the debate and the evidence that I had found and posted online in our discussions. |
||||||||||||||||
| Frankenstien Debate Reflection Self evaluation ~ Before the debate, I had reread part two of Frankenstein so as to highlight parts and look specifically for things that would go into my lens. I think that I did a good job in trying to find things that I needed to use for the debate and partly it was because I was very interested in it. I worked a lot in mentor session with my group members and posted a lot in the discussion board for our team. I think that I did a lot of work for this and put a lot of effort into it. As for the debate I think I did a good job in giving the evidence that I wanted to give, and spoke up when I thought things were needed. I took notes during the other side�s presentation whenever I knew of something that I could counteract it with. I also wrote key words down that would remind me of the things that I wanted to say against it. Peer review ~ In my team there was myself, Jenn A. and Candice. Both Jenn and Candice posted things online that were useful to out argument and I think that they put effort into looking for those things. The only thing that I think they could have done better was maybe to speak up while in mentor session with more ideas or what else they thought. Overall I think that they did a very good job, and came up with significant ideas. Overall Reflection on Debate Outcome ~ I think that both teams did a very good job. Both presented good evidence and at some other times, seemed to dig their own hole. The affirmative side came up with good ideas that they could use, saying how the monster had it in him to kill William because of the power that he had in him that he was born with, or he �innately� had. But I also that that the negative side came up with good evidence about that when the monster first say William, and he says to the boy, �I have no intentions of hurting you�. I don�t know if a side did better then the other side or not, but I think that overall everyone did a great job and tried their hardest. |
||||||||||||||||
| The human development part of what the monster learned could be from page 85 par 2 "... I found a fire which had been left by some wandering beggars, and was overcome with elight at the warmth I experienced from it. In my joy I thrust my hand into the live embers, but quickly drew it out again with a cry of pain. How strange, I thoguth, that the same cause should produce such opposite effects!" This shows how the monster learned from his action with the fire, that even though it produced warmth, that putting your hand in it caused pain, the paragraph also goes on to say "I examined the materials of the fire, and to my joy found it to be composed of wood. I quickly collected some branches; but they were wet, and would not burn. I was pained at this, and sat still watching the operation of the fire. The wet wood which I had placed near the heat dried, and itself became inflamed. I reflected on this; and... i discovered the cause". This shows that the monster was able to watch and learn from the things around him and be able to adapt what he learned to his bennifit. The monster had developed a learned hatred toward his creator and part of this was by the reaction he recived from other humans when they first see him. p. 86 half way down second paragraph "...And, perceiving me, shrieked loudly, and, quitting the hut, ran across the fields with a speed of which his debilitated form hardly appeared capable." also... next paragraph towards end of page "...the children shrieked, and one of the women fainted. The whole village was roused; some fled, some attacked me, untill, grievously bruised by stones and many other kinds of missile weapons, I escaped to the open country, and fearfully took refuge in a low hovel, quite bare, and making a wretched apperance". These two quotes show how everytime the monster came into contact with peopel, they all hated him instantly. The ran from him, threw things at him, anything to get him out of their sight and never even thought of trying to give him a chance because of the way he looked, and he looked as such because of the way he was created.... another quote... page 97 4th par. "But where were my firends and relations? No father had watched my infant days, no monther had blessed me with smiles and caresses; or if they had, all my past life was now a blot, a blind vacancy in which I distinguished nothing. ... What was I? The question again recurred, to be answered only with groans." This one shows that the monster was learning from his experiences and the way his cottergers acted and the things he leared and could not figure out what he was or why he was so ugly and turned away by others. |
||||||||||||||||