tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734943477593786790.post7716334075963781666..comments2024-02-23T07:11:16.253+02:00Comments on IB Economics (and, not only): The Economist Debate Seriesconstantine ziogashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14024605662231024336noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734943477593786790.post-40355238126690570682007-10-27T10:42:00.000+03:002007-10-27T10:42:00.000+03:00right back at you:Pright back at you:PElliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09695066563873689519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734943477593786790.post-36255928282996005612007-10-27T09:11:00.000+03:002007-10-27T09:11:00.000+03:00"Sir,i think its unlikely for us to ever agree on ..."Sir,i think its unlikely for us to ever agree on anything,so we might just agree to disagree and leave it there:p"<BR/><BR/>But, isn't that fun!<BR/>Mind you, I'm not quitting on you!constantine ziogashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14024605662231024336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734943477593786790.post-47031929858306568062007-10-27T01:19:00.000+03:002007-10-27T01:19:00.000+03:00well,yes i suppose that this topic may be argued i...well,yes i suppose that this topic may be argued in principle.But still,some schools may handle technologic innovations to the kids' benefits,while others might not.<BR/>Well,by my Norway-Darfur point i meant that kids in Darfur go to school if theyre lucky,they dont get much chance to use interactive whiteboards and Wikipedia,unlike most kids in Norway.<BR/><BR/> Sir,i think its unlikely for us to ever agree on anything,so we might just agree to disagree and leave it there:pElliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09695066563873689519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734943477593786790.post-66636342682830222007-10-26T22:36:00.000+03:002007-10-26T22:36:00.000+03:00You write: "It is a very subjective topic because ...You write: "It is a very subjective topic because each school may handle technologic innovations differently"<BR/><BR/>This line of criticism would lead most debates into a stalemate! Shouldn't we be able to arrive in principle at a conclusion concerning whether the 'output'is or is not better/greater given the new 'input' whichever way it is employed? <BR/><BR/>And why de we all know that it doesn't benefit kids in Darfur while it does in Norway. As a matter of fact, I would expect the total opposite! As technology is embodied in capital, the extra (marginal!) output will be greater when you add capital to a lower initial amount (=Darfur) than when you add it to a higher amount (=Norway)constantine ziogashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14024605662231024336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5734943477593786790.post-32925609787663879592007-10-26T14:58:00.000+03:002007-10-26T14:58:00.000+03:00i believe that the debate topic is bad because it ...i believe that the debate topic is bad because it leaves small room for a proposition case extension and the matching rebuttals.<BR/><BR/>It is a very subjective topic because each school may handle technologic innovations differently.<BR/><BR/>You cant say that technology benefits kids rducation in Darfur,because we all know it doesent.But it might benefit the education of kids in Norway.<BR/> We therefore have to either debate upon developed countries that use technologic innovations in their educational systems,or discard the topic as a whole.<BR/><BR/>:)Elliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09695066563873689519noreply@blogger.com