When told that my generation epitomizes laziness and simply contains the beneficiaries of an easy world, I am the first to protest. Mind you, I respond, we did not raise ourselves! It seems that you all have forgotten the little things, I am told. I retort, those “little things” are changing!

However, I have seen a growing trend throughout my classes that seems to prove the nay-sayers correct. I hope that this trend is not an epidemic among all members of my generation, but an endemic contained to AHS. It is simply my peers’ closed-mindedness.

Exactly the opposite of being open-minded, I have seen too many friends enter a discussion or debate with a predetermined notion that their position is the noble, just perspective. Anyone opposed to them should chalked be off as an imbecile. To them, things are personal.

This is the trend that has me disappointed.

In a classroom divided over a debate topic, I am often saddened to see opponents rolling their eyes at each other or exchanging remarks such as “how can you really think that?” while laughing at their classmates’ perceived stupidity. This is quite a disappointing occurrence.

Have we forgotten the purpose of discussion and debate? While different in their own regard (a discussion is an organized conversation about a topic, while a debate is a formal discussion involving opposing viewpoints), both can and should be accomplished without involving personal feelings.

In fact, for centuries, this aspect of formal disagreement has allowed for the most significant of revelations. After all, it is said that the Founding Fathers were noted for their jovial conversations in local Philadelphia taverns immediately after emerging from heated debate (both physically, as they occurred in late June into early July, and metaphorically) regarding the contents of a future declaration of independence.

However, it seems that students at AHS have forgotten such an aspect of discussion and debate. Maybe such a fault of memory can be attributed to the lack of a school-wide debate team (which, to my delight, I hear that administrative assistant Jennifer Sharp is attempting to begin) or teachers’ lack of understanding of the true merits of a discussion. Notwithstanding, students are losing valuable time when entering a class-wide debate with an obstinate state of mind.

However, such a loss can be easily changed. It is never too late.

Teachers and students alike could benefit from participating in classes modeled after IB Theory of Knowledge. Taught by social studies teachers John Hawes and Tim Kelly, the class gives students a free forum for thought. Without the pressure of receiving points for the frequency with which they participate in conversation, which are instead based on the content of their contributions, students are more easily open to a change of mind.

However, if such a problem remains undisturbed, I can only shudder to think of the behavior AHS alumni might display during meetings at future workplaces. Just imagine entering a meeting regarding a budget proposal only to hear your employee adamantly advocating for an exorbitantly pricey addendum.

Such a future might be quite realistic if left up to the current state of debate and discussion at AHS.