<statement of the topic>
How should we take care of elderly people who can't live without care. The number of elderly people is increasing and in the present situation, many family members can't take care of them. And, the local government would support the nursing home or home care workers.
<introduction of panel members and their initial position>
Mizuho: He is 75years old. His parents advised him to enter the nursing home, so he entered there.
Reiko: She is 50 years old. She manages the nursing home.
Hikari: She is 72 years old and she has a son. Her husband died, so she lives alone with help by Asuka.
Asuka: She is 32 years old and has two children. She supports Hikari from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm a day.
Miyabi: She is 21 years old and a university student. He wants to be a home helper.
<important points of the discussion as I see it>
Mizuho and Reiko want to increase the number of nursing homes. Hikari, Asuka and Miyabi want to the number of home helpers. Mizuho thinks he can spend enjoyable time talking with other elderly people in the nursing home. Reiko thinks care workers in the nursing home have good relationship with elderly people, so they can correspond quickly in emergency situations. Hikari thinks her home is comfortable for her and the nursing home isn't convenient. Asuka thinks elderly people can relax when they are in their house and care workers can be like a family member with elderly people.
<what the outcome was>
The panel members decided to build some nursing home and get the nursing home to employ home helpers.
<my personal opinion>
I thought elderly people had the right that they choose to enter the nusing home or ask home helpers to support. So, I thought the discussion that we have to choose one way had missed the point of the argument. And, when I asked "What do you think about the elderly people who can't pay the money?" to one panel member, she said the nursing home system didn't target the elderly people who can't pay money for entering, so it was not related to the nursing home. But, I thought care workers at the nursing home had to even give an eye to such elderly people. From these things, the local government should support the nursing home and home helpers.
<how effective the discussion was>
It was good that panel members made an explicit claim about their positions. And, when some citizens asked several questions, panel members listened to the citizen's opinions and made a rebuttal statement. I thought this approach of panel members was important.
<how it could have been better>
Some panel members talked with littele voice, so they should have speak with louder voice. I thought the moderator didn't talk about detailed imformation at first, so some citizens couldn't understand what a problem was and what the focus of this discussion was. The moderator should have talked about detailed imformation. And, each panel member didn't share their thoughts much at first, so I thought panel members should have share their ideas more at first.
2013年2月7日木曜日
2013年1月26日土曜日
discussion A4
<statement of the topic>
Should we construct a dam to prevent water shortage? The dam is going to be constructed in a mountain, so many animals will not be able to live there and some hot springs in the mountain will be broken. Moreover, some people will have to move to another place.
<introduction of panel members and their initial position>
Mariko: She is 40 and works at a Japanese inn. Her hobby is watching a movie. She opposes the dam
will be constructed because she doesn't want to break any hot springs.
Sakiko: She is 27and belongs to a humane society. She oppose the idea because she wants to protect animals.
Chihiro: She is 63 and a mayor of the village. She agree with the idea because she thinks citizen's can't live without water.
Atsushi: He is 50 and a politician. He agree with the idea because he thinks constructing a dam has some benefits for citizens.
<important points of the discussion as I see it>
If the dam is constructed in a mountain, many animals will not be able to live there and some hot springs will be broken, but a lot of citizens have no difficulty in water shortage. So, constructing a dam has good and bad sides. Citizens and panel members have to consider the importance of their own life and animal's life.
<what the outcome was>
Panel members decided to construct a dam. Mariko asked Atsushi to support jobless workers. Sakiko will provide a better environment for animals next mountains.
<my personal opinion>
I thought Atsushi's opinion that he moves animals to next mountains chasing them by car was irrealizable. And, Chihiro said people who have to move to another place should build their house with compensation money. But I thought the people didn't accept this idea because they probably liked present place. This discussion had difficulties to find out a solution.
<how effective the discussion was>
This time, I thought each panel member often said their opinion comparatively.
<how it could have been better>
Some panel members said their opinion in a low voice, so they should have said in a louder voice. And, Atsushi and Chihiro should have had more compelling opinions, if they construct a dam in a mountain.
Should we construct a dam to prevent water shortage? The dam is going to be constructed in a mountain, so many animals will not be able to live there and some hot springs in the mountain will be broken. Moreover, some people will have to move to another place.
<introduction of panel members and their initial position>
Mariko: She is 40 and works at a Japanese inn. Her hobby is watching a movie. She opposes the dam
will be constructed because she doesn't want to break any hot springs.
Sakiko: She is 27and belongs to a humane society. She oppose the idea because she wants to protect animals.
Chihiro: She is 63 and a mayor of the village. She agree with the idea because she thinks citizen's can't live without water.
Atsushi: He is 50 and a politician. He agree with the idea because he thinks constructing a dam has some benefits for citizens.
<important points of the discussion as I see it>
If the dam is constructed in a mountain, many animals will not be able to live there and some hot springs will be broken, but a lot of citizens have no difficulty in water shortage. So, constructing a dam has good and bad sides. Citizens and panel members have to consider the importance of their own life and animal's life.
<what the outcome was>
Panel members decided to construct a dam. Mariko asked Atsushi to support jobless workers. Sakiko will provide a better environment for animals next mountains.
<my personal opinion>
I thought Atsushi's opinion that he moves animals to next mountains chasing them by car was irrealizable. And, Chihiro said people who have to move to another place should build their house with compensation money. But I thought the people didn't accept this idea because they probably liked present place. This discussion had difficulties to find out a solution.
<how effective the discussion was>
This time, I thought each panel member often said their opinion comparatively.
<how it could have been better>
Some panel members said their opinion in a low voice, so they should have said in a louder voice. And, Atsushi and Chihiro should have had more compelling opinions, if they construct a dam in a mountain.
2013年1月16日水曜日
discussionC3
<statement of the topic>
Our city is going to hold a marathon for health promotion and it ecpects 2000 participants come to the marathon. The number of entrants is 1500 now. Panel members want more 500 participants from out of the city to continue the marathon in the future. They have to think about the way of collecting more 500.
<introduction of panel members and their initial position>
Chiaki: She is 33 years old and works at a information TV center.
Mai: She is 42 years old and a sponsor of the marathon.
Riho: She is 20 years old and has fished for 13 years.
Haruka: She is 24 lives in a neighboring town. She is an office worker.
<important points of the discussion as I see it>
Panel members wanted to collect more 500 participants from out of the city. So, they thought it was good to make a rest place where participants could eat sea food and hold a walk rally to increase the number of participants. And in the middle of discussion, they thought it was good idea if participants come to both events, the participants can get something special.
<what the outcome was>
Panel members decided to make another course just to walk and enjoy looking at view of the city.
<my personal opinion>
Panel members thought that the marathon would be held for the first time, so they have to collect paticipants as many as possible to continue the marathon in the future. However, I thought they didn't need to collect more participants by constraint directly because the marathon would be for the first time. And, I thought if participants can get sea food for free in the walk rally, some participants would come to the walk rally not marathon.
<how effective the discussion was>
It was good for a moderator to explain the background of discussion in detail. And, it was also good to discuss considering citizen's opinions. Panel mambers discussed with loud voice, so I could understand well.
<how it could have been better>
The member who provided her opinion that a walk rally was good to collect more participants didn't say detailed explanation. I thought she should have said more positively. And, I thought the moderator should have said a topic at the beginning of the discussion. Parhaps, most citizens didn't understand what was a problem.
Our city is going to hold a marathon for health promotion and it ecpects 2000 participants come to the marathon. The number of entrants is 1500 now. Panel members want more 500 participants from out of the city to continue the marathon in the future. They have to think about the way of collecting more 500.
<introduction of panel members and their initial position>
Chiaki: She is 33 years old and works at a information TV center.
Mai: She is 42 years old and a sponsor of the marathon.
Riho: She is 20 years old and has fished for 13 years.
Haruka: She is 24 lives in a neighboring town. She is an office worker.
<important points of the discussion as I see it>
Panel members wanted to collect more 500 participants from out of the city. So, they thought it was good to make a rest place where participants could eat sea food and hold a walk rally to increase the number of participants. And in the middle of discussion, they thought it was good idea if participants come to both events, the participants can get something special.
<what the outcome was>
Panel members decided to make another course just to walk and enjoy looking at view of the city.
<my personal opinion>
Panel members thought that the marathon would be held for the first time, so they have to collect paticipants as many as possible to continue the marathon in the future. However, I thought they didn't need to collect more participants by constraint directly because the marathon would be for the first time. And, I thought if participants can get sea food for free in the walk rally, some participants would come to the walk rally not marathon.
<how effective the discussion was>
It was good for a moderator to explain the background of discussion in detail. And, it was also good to discuss considering citizen's opinions. Panel mambers discussed with loud voice, so I could understand well.
<how it could have been better>
The member who provided her opinion that a walk rally was good to collect more participants didn't say detailed explanation. I thought she should have said more positively. And, I thought the moderator should have said a topic at the beginning of the discussion. Parhaps, most citizens didn't understand what was a problem.
2012年12月27日木曜日
discussionB3
<statement of the topic>
How to pay attention to homeless people? This city has more homeless people than other cities and there are few opportunities in this city. The city hasn't grasp the number of homeless people yet. This city decided to give them 12000 a month. However, people who depend on the money and don't work increased.
<introduction of panel members and their initial position>
Reiko: She is 40 and a officer of the local government. She agree that the government give homeless poeple 12000 a month.
Asuka: She is 19 years old. She cares about neighbor's homeless people daily.
Hikari: She is 52 years old. She divorced with her husband and doesn't have a child. She worked at a factory, but went homeless six month ago.
Kyoka: She is 50 years old. Her workplace went bankrupt when she was 40 years old, but she started new life.
<important points of the discussion as I see it>
Homeless people can't work without an adress and it is very hard for them to live with only 12000 yen a month. They want more money, but the loval government can't give more 12000 because there are some people who depend on the money and don't work. In the result, the local government needs to think about giving homelass people an adress at first. So, panel members should have discussed this point more and more.
<what the outcome was>
The panel members decided to ask budget committee to increase budget for homeless people and give some companies money to build like a dormitory. And, homeless people learn skill for working.
<my personal opinion>
I thought it was a good way to make a NPO group for homeless people. The group provide homeless people with a vacant apartment and homeless people can start to work thanks to an adress. Then after getting enough money, homeless people return rent money which the NPO group payed for a few years to the group. And then, the NPO group pays attention to spending habits of homeless people so that they can handle money well.
<how effective the discussion was>
This discussion required using our head very much, so I was very excited in a way. It was good to requre using our head to find some solutions.
<how it could have been better>
If more panel members drive each idea, the discussion would be better.
<why the panel members failed?>
I thought more panel member should have driven their ideas. And, some settings of this discussion confused that not only citizens but also panel members found several solutions.
How to pay attention to homeless people? This city has more homeless people than other cities and there are few opportunities in this city. The city hasn't grasp the number of homeless people yet. This city decided to give them 12000 a month. However, people who depend on the money and don't work increased.
<introduction of panel members and their initial position>
Reiko: She is 40 and a officer of the local government. She agree that the government give homeless poeple 12000 a month.
Asuka: She is 19 years old. She cares about neighbor's homeless people daily.
Hikari: She is 52 years old. She divorced with her husband and doesn't have a child. She worked at a factory, but went homeless six month ago.
Kyoka: She is 50 years old. Her workplace went bankrupt when she was 40 years old, but she started new life.
<important points of the discussion as I see it>
Homeless people can't work without an adress and it is very hard for them to live with only 12000 yen a month. They want more money, but the loval government can't give more 12000 because there are some people who depend on the money and don't work. In the result, the local government needs to think about giving homelass people an adress at first. So, panel members should have discussed this point more and more.
<what the outcome was>
The panel members decided to ask budget committee to increase budget for homeless people and give some companies money to build like a dormitory. And, homeless people learn skill for working.
<my personal opinion>
I thought it was a good way to make a NPO group for homeless people. The group provide homeless people with a vacant apartment and homeless people can start to work thanks to an adress. Then after getting enough money, homeless people return rent money which the NPO group payed for a few years to the group. And then, the NPO group pays attention to spending habits of homeless people so that they can handle money well.
<how effective the discussion was>
This discussion required using our head very much, so I was very excited in a way. It was good to requre using our head to find some solutions.
<how it could have been better>
If more panel members drive each idea, the discussion would be better.
<why the panel members failed?>
I thought more panel member should have driven their ideas. And, some settings of this discussion confused that not only citizens but also panel members found several solutions.
2012年12月20日木曜日
discussion A3
<statement of the topic>
Should we rebuild Yousaku's temple?
Only Yousaku's temple was broken down by an earthquake in our town. But, Some parts of the temple were not damaged. It costs one million yen to repair the temple. Yousaku wants to rebuild his temple, but some people want to build a department strore in his property.
<introduction of panel members and their initial position>
Sakiko: She is 17 and a high school student. She likes shopping and doesn't have good image to our
town.
Chihiro: She is 35 and a head of a department store.
Yousaku: He is 63 and a temple master. He is a stubborn man.
Atsushi: He is 25 and a university student. He likes visiting many temples.
<important points of the discussion as I see it>
Yousaku and Atsushi don't want to lose the temple. Yousaku wants to reduild his temple because many tourists come to see it. Andm he don't want to lose his career. Atsushi wants to write his graduation theis about Yousaku's temple and his girlfriend also like the temple, so he doesn't lose it. Atsushi thnks that citizens have to preserve history of the temple. Sakiko and Chihiro wants to build a department store instead of Yousaku's temple. Chihiro thinks that if a department store is built, benefits will increase than before. Sakiko thinks that if a department store is built, many people are able to buy anything which they want.
They discussed each other for a long time, but they overlooked that the place where Yousaku's temple was built was Yousaku's property.
<what the outcome was>
The panel members decided to rebuild Yousaku's temple. Sakiko and Chiaki gave up building a department store.
<my personal opinion>
I had some strange points in this discussion. First, I wondered that an earthquake damaged only Yousaku's temple. And, Yousaku said his temple had a marriage of god, but temples don't have the concept of god. Then, I thought it was near-impossible to build Yousaku's temple on a department store not to lose his parishioners and employ Youasku at the department store. If the panel members do that, the number of tourists who come to see the temple might decrease and Yousaku cannot chenge his job easily, I trhought. Sakiko said that she wanted to buy clothes and cosmetics at the department store and be attractive for her boyfriend. This opinion was just for her not citizens. In addition, Chihiro said that benefits for her company were more important than historic significance. This opinion was also just for her. I thought Sakiko and Chihiro needed to think about citizens a little more.
<how effective the discussion was>
I thought it was good for the moderator to ask panel members to say each final position. I thought the moderator had a good way of settling this discussion. One of the members especially said her opinion in a possitive way. I thought the approach was very good.
<how it could have been better>
If not only one member but also other members say each opinion more possitively, the discussion would become heated. In addition, I thought they needed to consider fundamental imformation more and more.
Should we rebuild Yousaku's temple?
Only Yousaku's temple was broken down by an earthquake in our town. But, Some parts of the temple were not damaged. It costs one million yen to repair the temple. Yousaku wants to rebuild his temple, but some people want to build a department strore in his property.
<introduction of panel members and their initial position>
Sakiko: She is 17 and a high school student. She likes shopping and doesn't have good image to our
town.
Chihiro: She is 35 and a head of a department store.
Yousaku: He is 63 and a temple master. He is a stubborn man.
Atsushi: He is 25 and a university student. He likes visiting many temples.
<important points of the discussion as I see it>
Yousaku and Atsushi don't want to lose the temple. Yousaku wants to reduild his temple because many tourists come to see it. Andm he don't want to lose his career. Atsushi wants to write his graduation theis about Yousaku's temple and his girlfriend also like the temple, so he doesn't lose it. Atsushi thnks that citizens have to preserve history of the temple. Sakiko and Chihiro wants to build a department store instead of Yousaku's temple. Chihiro thinks that if a department store is built, benefits will increase than before. Sakiko thinks that if a department store is built, many people are able to buy anything which they want.
They discussed each other for a long time, but they overlooked that the place where Yousaku's temple was built was Yousaku's property.
<what the outcome was>
The panel members decided to rebuild Yousaku's temple. Sakiko and Chiaki gave up building a department store.
<my personal opinion>
I had some strange points in this discussion. First, I wondered that an earthquake damaged only Yousaku's temple. And, Yousaku said his temple had a marriage of god, but temples don't have the concept of god. Then, I thought it was near-impossible to build Yousaku's temple on a department store not to lose his parishioners and employ Youasku at the department store. If the panel members do that, the number of tourists who come to see the temple might decrease and Yousaku cannot chenge his job easily, I trhought. Sakiko said that she wanted to buy clothes and cosmetics at the department store and be attractive for her boyfriend. This opinion was just for her not citizens. In addition, Chihiro said that benefits for her company were more important than historic significance. This opinion was also just for her. I thought Sakiko and Chihiro needed to think about citizens a little more.
<how effective the discussion was>
I thought it was good for the moderator to ask panel members to say each final position. I thought the moderator had a good way of settling this discussion. One of the members especially said her opinion in a possitive way. I thought the approach was very good.
<how it could have been better>
If not only one member but also other members say each opinion more possitively, the discussion would become heated. In addition, I thought they needed to consider fundamental imformation more and more.
2012年12月4日火曜日
dicussion C2
<statement of the topic>
How should we use budget to construct a library in a city center? We have 100 million budget. There is an old library which is built for 50 years in a suberb area and it takes us about 35 minutes to go there by bus from a city center.
<introduction of panel members and their initial position>
Taiga: He is 45 and a social studies teacher of senior high school. He wants to give many younger pepole opportunity to read various books, so he agree with constcucting the new library.
Asao: She is a third-grade student of university and lives in a city center.
Chiaki: She is 31 and a programmer.
Iku: He is 40 and has been working for 22 years. He likes an old library and also wants to expand it more.
<important points of the discussion as I see it>
Taiga thought that he wanted to give many students an opportunity to access a library easily. Asao said that she wanted the new library to put more useful books for graduation thesis in it. Iku thought he wanted to expand the old library and make it much better. Chiaki wanted to hold an event in the old library and lend some universities useful books for graduation thesis.
<what the outcome was>
The panel members decided to share budget with the new library and old one. In the result, the old library can't remake the building, but can increase the number of books and bus connections for pepole who come there. Besides, it can hold a event to attract visitors.
<my personal opinion>
I thought that it was another way for the old library to give some universities various kinds of books and continue buying new books. If the new library isn't built, the old one would be able to remake the building and wouldn't need to worry about decreasing of visitors. One of the panel members said people who want to read old books would go to the old library, and people who want to read new books would go to the new library, but I thought the old one also had new books. So, saying that definitively would not good. In addition, he said "youg people should not go the old library because it is far from a city center." Some young people might go to the old library even it is far, so this phrase also would not good.
<how effective the discussion was>
I thought it was good for the moderator to consider both ideas of the new library and old one. In addition, it was nice for a panel member related to the old library considerd the case of decreasing of visitors.
<how it could have been better>
I thought if all panel members except of athe moderator talked about their opinions evenly, the discussion would become heated more. This time, especially one panel member talked about his opinion for long. I wanted to hear opinions of the old library side more.
How should we use budget to construct a library in a city center? We have 100 million budget. There is an old library which is built for 50 years in a suberb area and it takes us about 35 minutes to go there by bus from a city center.
<introduction of panel members and their initial position>
Taiga: He is 45 and a social studies teacher of senior high school. He wants to give many younger pepole opportunity to read various books, so he agree with constcucting the new library.
Asao: She is a third-grade student of university and lives in a city center.
Chiaki: She is 31 and a programmer.
Iku: He is 40 and has been working for 22 years. He likes an old library and also wants to expand it more.
<important points of the discussion as I see it>
Taiga thought that he wanted to give many students an opportunity to access a library easily. Asao said that she wanted the new library to put more useful books for graduation thesis in it. Iku thought he wanted to expand the old library and make it much better. Chiaki wanted to hold an event in the old library and lend some universities useful books for graduation thesis.
<what the outcome was>
The panel members decided to share budget with the new library and old one. In the result, the old library can't remake the building, but can increase the number of books and bus connections for pepole who come there. Besides, it can hold a event to attract visitors.
<my personal opinion>
I thought that it was another way for the old library to give some universities various kinds of books and continue buying new books. If the new library isn't built, the old one would be able to remake the building and wouldn't need to worry about decreasing of visitors. One of the panel members said people who want to read old books would go to the old library, and people who want to read new books would go to the new library, but I thought the old one also had new books. So, saying that definitively would not good. In addition, he said "youg people should not go the old library because it is far from a city center." Some young people might go to the old library even it is far, so this phrase also would not good.
<how effective the discussion was>
I thought it was good for the moderator to consider both ideas of the new library and old one. In addition, it was nice for a panel member related to the old library considerd the case of decreasing of visitors.
<how it could have been better>
I thought if all panel members except of athe moderator talked about their opinions evenly, the discussion would become heated more. This time, especially one panel member talked about his opinion for long. I wanted to hear opinions of the old library side more.
2012年11月19日月曜日
discussion B2
<statement of the topic>
Our town got budget of 10 million from the government. We have to think about how to use the budget in our town. Also, our town is underpopulated and children are much fewer than old people.
<introduction of panel members and their initial position>
Reiko: She is 20 amd a local university student. She lives with her family.
Asuka: She is 80 years old. She lives with her husband and pension.
Hikari: She is 28 and a office worker. She is a single person.
Kyoka: She is 30 and a housewife. She has children and lives with them in an apartment.
Mizuho: He is 42 years old. He works at a town hall.
<important points of the discussion as I see it>
Mizuho thought he wanted to activate our town by making a shopping mall and selling local products. Besides, improving transportation system and making kindergartens more need to argue with citizens than making a shopping mall. Kyoka wanted to make kindergartens because there were just one kindergarten in our town. And, she planed to use the budget for child allowance. Reiko had a n opinion that we needed to improve transportation system by increasing bus service. Hikari wants to use 3 million of the budget for helding a live concert, fashion show, or marathon. Its aim is to activate our town. Asuka had an idea that we needed to make a nursing home and decrease the number of old people who dyed solitary death. Also, she wanted to held a tea party.
<what the outcome was>
We would use the budget to increase bus service and buy some wheel chairs and busses.
<my personal opinion>
I didn't think the panel members estimated cost of each plan deeply. When Mr.Jeff asked whether 10 million is enough to achieve each plan, some of panelars changed their pinions. In addition, there was often silence, so I thought the panel members were also confused about broad plans. Moreover, I wanted to know each smaller plan, like how much does it cost to get famous musicians to perform live.
<how effective the discussion was>
There were some good plans, so I could get into the discussion deeply. The focal point of this discussion wasn't out of alignment, so I thought the discussion was good.
<how it could have been better>
I think if an operator speaks background of the topic more slowly and loudly, the discussion would be better. And, they needed to consider what is the best way to get much benefit as possible.
Our town got budget of 10 million from the government. We have to think about how to use the budget in our town. Also, our town is underpopulated and children are much fewer than old people.
<introduction of panel members and their initial position>
Reiko: She is 20 amd a local university student. She lives with her family.
Asuka: She is 80 years old. She lives with her husband and pension.
Hikari: She is 28 and a office worker. She is a single person.
Kyoka: She is 30 and a housewife. She has children and lives with them in an apartment.
Mizuho: He is 42 years old. He works at a town hall.
<important points of the discussion as I see it>
Mizuho thought he wanted to activate our town by making a shopping mall and selling local products. Besides, improving transportation system and making kindergartens more need to argue with citizens than making a shopping mall. Kyoka wanted to make kindergartens because there were just one kindergarten in our town. And, she planed to use the budget for child allowance. Reiko had a n opinion that we needed to improve transportation system by increasing bus service. Hikari wants to use 3 million of the budget for helding a live concert, fashion show, or marathon. Its aim is to activate our town. Asuka had an idea that we needed to make a nursing home and decrease the number of old people who dyed solitary death. Also, she wanted to held a tea party.
<what the outcome was>
We would use the budget to increase bus service and buy some wheel chairs and busses.
<my personal opinion>
I didn't think the panel members estimated cost of each plan deeply. When Mr.Jeff asked whether 10 million is enough to achieve each plan, some of panelars changed their pinions. In addition, there was often silence, so I thought the panel members were also confused about broad plans. Moreover, I wanted to know each smaller plan, like how much does it cost to get famous musicians to perform live.
<how effective the discussion was>
There were some good plans, so I could get into the discussion deeply. The focal point of this discussion wasn't out of alignment, so I thought the discussion was good.
<how it could have been better>
I think if an operator speaks background of the topic more slowly and loudly, the discussion would be better. And, they needed to consider what is the best way to get much benefit as possible.
登録:
投稿 (Atom)