Jacob Tarconish

One written assessment we had to provide during our deliberation project was an
overview of our overall performance as far as the debate went, and how we judged our
strengths and weaknesses as the conversation progressed.


I felt that a base of knowledge was already established for us through the book,
which made it easy to establish and expand upon ideas. Supplementing information was easy
and rarely took more than a few minutes on google to find something relevant. Still, our group
went over and above in that respect, as there were some very well thought out responses and
anecdotes that showed true interest, and helped to create a strong foundation from which we
could build upon. This was truly a crucial aid in allowing us to keep the conversation steady and
on pace.
Conversely, I thought our group struggled with keeping key issues in mind during
our discussion. Such a feat is rarely easy, and the vagueness of the problem as well as the
possible solutions presented allowed us a lot of leniency. Even so, I think that there were a few
times where we might have crossed into the grey zone of not knowing whether the
discussion would be conducive to solving the problem, and what is distracting from it. There
also was a creeping disinterest in the room that began to hang over everyones heads and slow
down the pace of discussion, but I feel we did a commendable job keeping ourselves motivated
and impassioned while debating.

Still, this large frequency of conversation led to a plethora of possible solutions, with
each different method carrying a dozen or so different viewpoints on implementation. Even
though we did not create a new option in like others in our class, we did manage to tweak
multiple aspects of the options we had. The end result was a mixture of the best features from
every opinion, offering a possible solution with a mesh of attributes. While we couldnt sew
everything into a perfect answer, we did manage to create several solutions that we felt would
work better than the options presented.

My personal focus was making sure that every opinion had two sides to it, both a
support and a resistance. I wanted to make sure that everyone saw every possible pro & con
and duality to every opinion discussed. While this may not have made me too many friends, it
did seem to stir a fire in everyones belly. As those that disagreed with my viewpoint would rally
supporters together and attempt to shift the group to a definitive answer, I encouraged the
group to weigh all pros and cons in order to get some common ground. This notion kept me
from forming a definitive bias and spurred our group into adapting as we went along.

Without a doubt, our group scrutinized our decision to pick the best option extremely
thoroughly, and (after much scrutiny) that our decision was both free of bias, most helpful to
the cause, and easily implementable. This decision was debated time and time again until it was
unanimously decided that the answer presented to the group was the best. Although our
choice may not be the most feasible option, it is one that our entire group stands behind 100
percent.

Speaking opportunities were not equally distributed, however they were equally
accessible. By no means did anyone dominate the conversation, but at the same time, I believe
that few of us had more speaking time to keep the discussion lively and engaging. No one had
the chance to hog the proverbial mic because no one really wanted to discourage anyone else
from speaking.

By far, I think my groups biggest weakness was mutual comprehension. I know, many
of the discussions implied knowledge rather than explained the rationale behind the decision.
Frequently, I saw people looking around and confused by not fully understanding what another
group member has just said. This was not remedied because of the speed of our discussion.
Previously, you could get a chance to explain yourself to the group, but as we progressed in the
discussion, time allotted for explanation was scarce. The group had already moved on to a
different train of thought. I felt that this was our biggest area for improvement, but at the same
time, simply slowing down the conversation would have done wonders.

One of my personal weaknesses that I had to overcome to deliberate effectively was
to see things and ideas from other perspectives. Admittedly, I am a stubborn little goat, and I
dont like to adapt my ideas around new information rather than changing my view to
accommodate new information; however, I do think that this assignment helped me get
through that roadblock. Better still, our group seemed to help me work in this area. They
helped me to improve upon my own particular weakness, an area most of them seemed strong
in.

Without question, everyone in our group had the upmost respect for one another,
especially during the assignment. Through common courtesy, we established that we would
raise our hands and use politeness to determine who would talk when. Everyone was incredibly
respectful to whoever was speaking. Never once did the need for disciplinary action or an issue
of disrespect come up, so more time and attention was directed towards a possible solution to
the current situation in the discussion.

I would say that the deliberation assignment went even better than I had hoped for.
Our group was perfectly imperfect, allowing us to grow and learn from minor mistakes, while
still providing excellence in areas that required it. This led to an effective discussion that left
each member of our group walking away with more information than they entered with. All in
all group 2 was respectful, insightful, and knowledgeable to the point where I truly feel we
succeeded in the assignment.